Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Kansas House passes bill allowing open discrimination against gay people   (m.huffpost.com) divider line 352
    More: Asinine, Kansas House, Kansas, same-sex couples, discrimination, Kansas Legislature  
•       •       •

3852 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 1:34 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



352 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-12 01:26:53 PM  
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

www.portableshrines.com
 
2014-02-12 01:31:14 PM  
Petulant children

/who will get spanked before it's all over
 
2014-02-12 01:32:55 PM  
That will certainly never stand up in court.
 
2014-02-12 01:36:12 PM  
God damn these people waste a lot of time and effort pushing their bigotry...
 
2014-02-12 01:36:52 PM  
Can we just tag and release all the people that live(ed) in Kansas please.  Just a tattoo on their forehead that says 'I chose to live in Kansas' or something like that.  That way if you ever see one speaking, you are forewarned.
 
2014-02-12 01:37:05 PM  
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

I... I hate you, Mr. Macheers. I've never met you, but I actually have some small spark of hate for the sentiment and hypocrisy you display.
 
2014-02-12 01:38:07 PM  
Good job, mouth breathers.
 
2014-02-12 01:38:13 PM  
I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.
 
2014-02-12 01:38:15 PM  
So, because I'm a Catholic and hate Protestants I'm cool to discriminate against them.

Good to know.
 
2014-02-12 01:38:57 PM  
ATTENTION:

Kansas is not part of the South.

/thank you and have a nice day
 
2014-02-12 01:39:14 PM  
granting public and private employees the right to deny services, including unemployment benefits and foster care, to same-sex couples on the basis of religious freedom.

O_o
 
2014-02-12 01:39:25 PM  
1. Kansas does rrrrrealllly stupid sh*t.
2. there are enough people so incredibly stupid that they'd elect degenerates like this and re-elect them.
3. Brownback is a terrible person, a terrible governor and deserves to be forced to live in South Beach for the rest of his days, working as a janitor cleaning up bathrooms in a very popular gay bar for minimum wage.
 
2014-02-12 01:39:53 PM  
Maybe this would have been a good bill to vote for.  Hear me out.  It singles out one group of people for special discriminating treatment, meaning it will end up in a supreme court, state probably in this case, that will throw it out and possible some other anti-gay laws as well.

nope, can't go any further, broke my brainimg.fark.net
 
2014-02-12 01:40:05 PM  
i really need to make a plural version of this

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-12 01:40:37 PM  
Wow...
 
2014-02-12 01:40:38 PM  
"Largely backed by Republican state lawmakers"

you_dont_say.jpg
 
2014-02-12 01:40:39 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org

Truer words, never written.
 
2014-02-12 01:40:46 PM  

scottydoesntknow: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

[www.portableshrines.com image 500x279]


Was coming to paste the same quote.

Wow! in what universe does that make any sense??????
 
2014-02-12 01:40:57 PM  
Some of these states sure waste a lot of money passing unconstitutional legislation but that's just how the modern conservative do, I guess.
 
2014-02-12 01:41:11 PM  
If there needed to be anything added to the federal argument that gay people need special protections then a state passing a law saying it's OK to discriminate against them will surely help.
 
2014-02-12 01:41:43 PM  

tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.


What is their response to you? (Your coworkers / family).
 
2014-02-12 01:41:46 PM  
Kansas, meet supremacy clause.  Supremacy clause, Kansas.
 
2014-02-12 01:41:53 PM  

tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.


Churches can refuse to marry any heterosexual couples for any reason, so they can still refuse same-sex couples.
 
2014-02-12 01:41:53 PM  

Bloody William: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

I... I hate you, Mr. Macheers. I've never met you, but I actually have some small spark of hate for the sentiment and hypocrisy you display.


Small?  SMALL spark of hate?  You're a better person than me, apparently.
 
2014-02-12 01:42:13 PM  
Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.
 
2014-02-12 01:42:17 PM  
Is it only gay couples? I am assuming it is because I would have a lot of fun denying good, gay hating christians services.
 
2014-02-12 01:42:19 PM  

ristst: ATTENTION:

Kansas is not part of the South.

/thank you and have a nice day


Accidents of geography notwithstanding, I'm calling bullshiat. ;)
 
2014-02-12 01:42:32 PM  
Kansas has gay people?

pcj.typepad.com
 
2014-02-12 01:42:33 PM  
Yeah, it's farking Kansas.
 
2014-02-12 01:42:36 PM  
FTFB(ill):
treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid

Schweet.. I'm going to go open a wedding cake business in Topeka. You come to me and you are a white man and a white woman wanting to get married?

DENIED!

You're gay, bi, trans, mixed race couple. Come right in and have a seat. Here's a free sample!
 
2014-02-12 01:42:48 PM  

scottydoesntknow: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

[www.portableshrines.com image 500x279]


I would just like to thank Mr. Macheers, for his help in what will inevitably lead to reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state.  Thank you for helping this country in your own backward ass and hateful of anyone not just like you way.
 
2014-02-12 01:43:02 PM  
No, I will not stop posting this quote from US v. Lee (1982):

"...Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."

But even worse in this bill is government benefits could be refused based on who is working that day. Is Chris, the evangelical Christian working your case? No unemployment benefits for you. But if Michael gets it, you're good to go.

Would that qualify for "unusual punishment" since it's not based on any regular metric?
 
2014-02-12 01:43:50 PM  
To my Kansas Representative,
     I see that you voted in favor of HB2453 a bill that is somewhat euphamistically called "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage." Not knowing you personally perhaps there's something I'm missing but I'm having a hard time figuring out what would posses you to support a bill that is so full of misleading language, bigotry and pig headed stupidity as HB2453. Please note that this is a legitimate request for clarification of your position(perhaps you were drunk at the time of the vote or suffered a recent head injury) and I look forward to your response.

sincerely,
      Voiceofreason01
 
2014-02-12 01:44:08 PM  

Mrembo: scottydoesntknow: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

[www.portableshrines.com image 500x279]

Was coming to paste the same quote.

Wow! in what universe does that make any sense??????


"Your religion says that one should love and accept thy neighbor, while my religion says that I should be a hateful fark. Your laws let you love and accept people, but they don't let me be a bigot. Therefore, you're discriminating against my religious freedom!"

It's logical. Evil, twisted, and a good argument for theocide, but it's at least logical.
 
2014-02-12 01:44:12 PM  
I've heard from any number of concern trolls who have reacted to Michael Sams coming out with some variation on this: "Why do we have to hear about this? I mean, I don't care. I just wish we would get to the point where this isn't news."

Well, we can get to that point after this kind of shiat (among other things) stops.
 
2014-02-12 01:44:31 PM  
Religious freedom allows you to practice your RELIGION.

It does NOT allow you to break any law you want and claim "it's part of my religion".

If you want to claim an activity is protected by religious rights you need to:

1) Prove that your religion specifically REQUIRES you to do the specific activity.  Jews can't shoot all pigs on sight simple because we don't eat pork.  The religion requires us to avoid eating pork, not kill all pigs.
2)  Prove that your religion held that belief BEFORE the law outlawing the activity was created or failing that, that the religion was created without any attempt to subvert the law.
3) Also prove that your religious activity does NOT directly impinge on the rights of others.  You can not practice human sacrifice simply because you are practicing Incan High Priest.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:21 PM  
Also, because I'm an atheist and religious conservatives tell me that this is a religion, I can now discriminate against Christians if I move to Kansas?

I'm an asshole, but I'm not a big enough asshole to do that, but the idea is amusing. One could raise ruckus stating that they feel male/female marriages were an abomination.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:48 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


Christ we already had this conversation last week with the guy who refuses to serve ni-*DONG*, f*gs, freaks, cripples, and anyone else he doesn't like

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. If you are a business that is open to the general public, you don't get to decide not to serve someone simply because they're gay/black/asian/young/old/crippled/etc.

Would you be making that same statement if the wedding cake company (who is NOT a religious institution) decided to not serve a black or interracial couple getting married?
 
2014-02-12 01:46:33 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


Read the bill a little closer.

(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-
religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service
that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the
individual's employer
, in directing the performance of such service,
shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or
shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be
done without undue hardship to the employer



Translation: if I'm the local bumfark sheriff in BF county I can refuse to bring domestic violence charges against a couple.  If I'm the local judge, I can say fark you to the two gays who want to get married, divorced, adopt a child, or so forth.  And if you're in a one-judge or one-sheriff county you're plain the fark out of luck.
 
2014-02-12 01:47:04 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


You mean the people who live and do business in a state where they've passed a law saying you cannot deny service based on protected classes, and include among those classes homosexuals, then proceeded to tell a gay couple that they couldn't do business with the couple because of their homosexuality?

Those people?

How about just shut up and go "I don't think I can do this, sorry." You don't have to provide a reason unless you've signed a contract - and do you think that you should get a religious out of a signed contract?
 
2014-02-12 01:47:09 PM  
Just f**king secede already.
 
2014-02-12 01:47:44 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 disagrees with you.
Go ahead and google "Public Accomidations".
 
2014-02-12 01:47:48 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


It matters. If you decide to serve everyone except one tiny group of people, you are discriminating them. Its different if say, you get a total asshole who makes your life miserable and you ban that one person from your services, but you cant blanket an entire group.

Laws like this will make it harder to get prescriptions, services, and lodging. The democrat quoted in the article is worried about police officers which i guess makes sense. I would be more worried about pharmacies and hotels refusing service. Where would you get needed medication or a place to stay if you needed it and were denied because you "sound gay."
 
2014-02-12 01:48:35 PM  
If this passes, I wanna take up a collection.  I'm going open a storefront.  The sign in my window will say

"No Crosses.
Turbans OK."

I expect full support of my religious freedom.

/or, we can take bets on when an upstanding christian will gun me down in church
 
2014-02-12 01:48:39 PM  
Or Public Accomodations.
Either works.
 
2014-02-12 01:48:47 PM  
i47.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-12 01:49:07 PM  
You know, theres quite a few open spots in Gitmo to put these Kansas religious extremists, who continue to commit domestic terrorism, by using their religion to write law.

/Separation of church and State is the law, either obey it or get the f*ck out
//there an African nation looking for christian freedom fighters, today.
 
2014-02-12 01:49:19 PM  

tarkin1: You can not practice human sacrifice simply because you are practicing Incan High Priest.


Crap. There goes my plan for the weekend.
 
2014-02-12 01:49:58 PM  

pueblonative: shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be
done without undue hardship to the employer


"Sorry, too hard.  Fark off."
 
2014-02-12 01:49:58 PM  
Kind of a Mississippi of the Mid-West.
 
2014-02-12 01:51:15 PM  
done in one.

the mental disconnect is astounding.

Not all of us are like this.
 
2014-02-12 01:51:27 PM  
"To me it really talks to the fact that an employer or even a governmental entity ... could not provide services," Kansas state lawmaker Emily Perry (D-Mission) said on HuffPost Live Tuesday. Perry warned of a situation in which a police officer arriving at the scene of a domestic violence dispute between a gay couple could potentially endanger the complainant by refusing protective services.

And to any trolls who try to say that she is just scaremongering, I would like to point out section 2 (d) of this bill:  an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies,

So yes, if you call up the cops to report domestic violence from a gay partner, the officer would be completely legal, justified, and protected from civil action when he tells you he doesn't believe in helping you and you'll have to wait until he can get around to finding someone who does.
 
2014-02-12 01:51:29 PM  

Voiceofreason01: To my Kansas Representative,
     I see that you voted in favor of HB2453 a bill that is somewhat euphamistically called "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage." Not knowing you personally perhaps there's something I'm missing but I'm having a hard time figuring out what would posses you to support a bill that is so full of misleading language, bigotry and pig headed stupidity as HB2453. Please note that this is a legitimate request for clarification of your position(perhaps you were drunk at the time of the vote or suffered a recent head injury) and I look forward to your response.

sincerely,
      Voiceofreason01


Good luck with that.
 
2014-02-12 01:51:51 PM  

Mrembo: scottydoesntknow: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

[www.portableshrines.com image 500x279]


Was coming to paste the same quote.

Wow! in what universe does that make any sense??????


Great minds think alike...I came racing in here to post that quote and that graphic!
 
2014-02-12 01:52:04 PM  

kidgenius: FTFB(ill):
treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid

Schweet.. I'm going to go open a wedding cake business in Topeka. You come to me and you are a white man and a white woman wanting to get married?

DENIED!


Technically, it's possible... From the bill:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual 
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any 
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious 
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender
...
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar 
arrangement as valid.


You'd have to argue that your sincerely held religious beliefs were that heterosexual marriages were an abomination. Or, I suppose, that you believe in egalitarian marriages, and so a traditional marriage of a patriarch and chattel would be a sin, and therefore refuse to serve such people. I think the Unitarians could go for that.
 
2014-02-12 01:53:53 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


In America the state does not provide all goods and services.  In America private biz provides goods and services that the state does not.  If there was a state provider for all goods and services available as a non-discriminatory source you would have a leg to stand on.
 
2014-02-12 01:54:03 PM  
Mrembo:Good luck with that.
I could head over to Topeka and kick him in the balls if you think that would work better
 
2014-02-12 01:54:45 PM  
The GOP is cutting off their nose to spite their face. If their goal is to keep benefits from gay people, this isn't the way to go about it. In fact, this law is almost certain to get tossed, either by the State Supreme Court, or the SCOTUS. And that will serve to confirm the rights of the gays. I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through. I know, I know. I'm as shocked as you are...
 
2014-02-12 01:54:57 PM  
So when is Brownback going to start putting out feelers he wants to be President in 16. He's doing a great job with this, no taxes on business, abortion. Plus living in a fly over state, he can say stupid crap and not worry about it. Kind of like Walker except without the permanent DERP look
 
2014-02-12 01:55:02 PM  
*sigh*
 
2014-02-12 01:55:14 PM  

Theaetetus: kidgenius: FTFB(ill):
treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid

Schweet.. I'm going to go open a wedding cake business in Topeka. You come to me and you are a white man and a white woman wanting to get married?

DENIED!

Technically, it's possible... From the bill:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual 
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any 
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious 
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender...
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar 
arrangement as valid.

You'd have to argue that your sincerely held religious beliefs were that heterosexual marriages were an abomination. Or, I suppose, that you believe in egalitarian marriages, and so a traditional marriage of a patriarch and chattel would be a sin, and therefore refuse to serve such people. I think the Unitarians could go for that.


Did you get married by a priest or in a church or "in the eyes of god?"

If so, BEAT IT, YOU RELIGIOUS DIRTBAGS THIS IS THE CHURCH OF ATHEISM!!!one!!
 
2014-02-12 01:55:56 PM  
farm4.staticflickr.com
 
2014-02-12 01:56:12 PM  

Mrembo: tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.

What is their response to you? (Your coworkers / family).


I asked that of my pastor once.  He just made a pissed off face and walked away.

Him: "Allowing gays to change the definition of marriage will irreparably harm the institution of marriage!"
Me: "Really?  So you're saying that if two guys go down to the county courthouse and get hitched, you'll stop loving your wife?  You'd have to divorce her and leave the kids?  Tell you what, let me see your phone for a second, I think she needs to know just how small of a thread her relationship is hanging on by."
 
2014-02-12 01:56:44 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.


fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that. They're free to go anytime they feel like it, but they don't get to take the infrastructure and resources with them. I'm sure there are several flights a day leaving Kansas heading towards another country. : )

Regarding this law, what farking joke. These bigots are too stupid to realize they lost this debate. This law won't stand up to the first challenge.
 
2014-02-12 01:57:00 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


Then don't run a business that provides services to the public.
No one took away those homophobes' rights; they gave them up willingly when they became a business.

/they could'a also just said "no, we're too busy right now" instead of "lolz no homoquerrs cause Jesus!"
 
2014-02-12 01:57:31 PM  

keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that. They're free to go anytime they feel like it, but they don't get to take the infrastructure and resources with them. I'm sure there are several flights a day leaving Kansas heading towards another country. : )

Regarding this law, what farking joke. These bigots are too stupid to realize they lost this debate. This law won't stand up to the first challenge.


thisthisthisthisandthis

You lost.

Leave or get with the program.
 
2014-02-12 01:58:22 PM  
This will get smacked down in the courts. I hope their peepees get smacked so hard that they never try anything like this again.
 
2014-02-12 01:58:31 PM  

Witty_Retort: TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.

Then don't run a business that provides services to the public.
No one took away those homophobes' rights; they gave them up willingly when they became a business.

/they could'a also just said "no, we're too busy right now" instead of "lolz no homoquerrs cause Jesus!"


It's almost like they wanted to be a persecuted minority (although if they repeated the former that many times I'm sure the Civil Commission could have built a case on that).
 
2014-02-12 01:59:57 PM  

dr_blasto:
If so, BEAT IT, YOU RELIGIOUS DIRTBAGS THIS IS THE CHURCH OF ATHEISM!!!one!!


See, there you go...you and your godless athiest agenda, fueled by big-money athiest causes. We, the people of Kansas, are going to write a new bill that FORCES you to give us services. Our church marriage is right and we will not be denied our rights!
 
2014-02-12 02:00:04 PM  
Any chance of getting a Kickstarter Campaign going to buy enough wire to fence Kansas in?
We can claim our religion calls for a preemptive strike to prevent the oncoming Zombie Apocalypse.
I can now understand why Kansas is limiting the funding for Mental Health Facilities.
It would mean that there would be enough beds available if it were proven that Kansas politicians need to be committed to protect the general public.
To quote Edward R. Murrow "Good night and good luck."
 
2014-02-12 02:00:19 PM  

James!: If there needed to be anything added to the federal argument that gay people need special protections then a state passing a law saying it's OK to discriminate against them will surely help.


I think by the end of the year there's going to be enough of this crap to force the SCOTUS' hand into making LGBT a protected class on top of enforcing marriage equality at the federal level.

I also think when that happens a few religious nutters with rifles are going to give Barry a few more seats in the courts to fill before he leaves office. Hopefully one in the SCOTUS. The delicious irony is that it will likely be one of the conservative judges who fell in the majority for being a "Traitor."

This is going to be a very interesting year.
 
2014-02-12 02:00:35 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: The GOP is cutting off their nose to spite their face. If their goal is to keep benefits from gay people, this isn't the way to go about it. In fact, this law is almost certain to get tossed, either by the State Supreme Court, or the SCOTUS. And that will serve to confirm the rights of the gays. I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through. I know, I know. I'm as shocked as you are...


I'd say there's a good argument it's  already unconstitutional under  Romer v.Evans. There, there was a Colorado constitutional amendment that banned sexual orientation from being considered in anti-discrimination laws. As the state supreme court said:
Amendment 2... seeks only to prevent the adoption of anti-discrimination laws intended to protect gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

And, as Kennedy wrote in the opinion ruling it unconstitutional:
It is a fair, if not necessary, inference from the broad language of the amendment that it deprives gays and lesbians even of the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings...
Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.


I would say that the same analysis applies here.
 
2014-02-12 02:01:14 PM  

keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that.



What war did we lose?
 
2014-02-12 02:01:17 PM  
BTW, do you think there would be a Democratic legislator in Kansas brave enough to call the Republitards bluff and say, "okay, let's up the list of exemptions from sex and gender to sex, creed, religion, race, gender, and physical/mental handicap"  Put the assholes on the spot and have them revote the entire discrimination act for Kansas.
 
2014-02-12 02:02:38 PM  

Mrembo: tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.

What is their response to you? (Your coworkers / family).


Usually something on the lines that I am *just* wrong, cause they said so.  But a lady at work realized she was just being bigoted and now doesn't say anything.
 
2014-02-12 02:02:57 PM  

Theaetetus: kidgenius: FTFB(ill):
treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid

Schweet.. I'm going to go open a wedding cake business in Topeka. You come to me and you are a white man and a white woman wanting to get married?

DENIED!

Technically, it's possible... From the bill:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual 
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any 
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious 
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender...
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar 
arrangement as valid.

You'd have to argue that your sincerely held religious beliefs were that heterosexual marriages were an abomination. Or, I suppose, that you believe in egalitarian marriages, and so a traditional marriage of a patriarch and chattel would be a sin, and therefore refuse to serve such people. I think the Unitarians could go for that.


That's not hard.  It says 'sincerely' held religious beliefs, not actual tenets of your faith.  It's written that way specifically so that bigots won't have to actually read their bibles enough to be able to point out where it says gays can't get married if they're sued - they just have to believe that gays should get married.  Because Jebus.

As an example: Kidgenius could say that it is his sincerely held belief that the heterosexual population of Kansas should all be given a good smiting for being bad neighbors (Sodom wasn't destroyed for sodomy, but because its population wanted to rape tourists).  As such, he cannot solemnize marriages for people who are so clearly behaving against the will of God.  Just as a Catholic church could refuse to marry two Protestants for not sharing the faith.
 
2014-02-12 02:03:04 PM  

keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that. They're free to go anytime they feel like it, but they don't get to take the infrastructure and resources with them. I'm sure there are several flights a day leaving Kansas heading towards another country. : )

Regarding this law, what farking joke. These bigots are too stupid to realize they lost this debate. This law won't stand up to the first challenge.


well Kansas was part of the Union, so they didn't secede and they fought those that did secede. Kansas was admitted in to the Union in 1861 and provided 20k+ troops to the Union side of the conflict.
 
2014-02-12 02:03:10 PM  
I would try to get Muslims to move to Kansas so they can start refusing to do things for Christians. Then have Jews move there so they could start refusing do do things for Christians.

Just for giggles, have them force everyone to pray to Mecca. This law would go away so fast.
 
2014-02-12 02:03:19 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Kansas has gay people?

[pcj.typepad.com image 800x369]


The closet is behind the photographer.
 
2014-02-12 02:03:30 PM  

keylock71: I'm sure there are several flights a day leaving Kansas heading towards another country.


Actually, I don't think there are. The only International airport is in Kansas City....Missouri.
 
2014-02-12 02:03:31 PM  
You hear that, Muslims? You can be completely free to live under the guidelines of Islam if you move to Kansas.
 
2014-02-12 02:04:25 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: The GOP is cutting off their nose to spite their face. If their goal is to keep benefits from gay people, this isn't the way to go about it. In fact, this law is almost certain to get tossed, either by the State Supreme Court, or the SCOTUS. And that will serve to confirm the rights of the gays. I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through. I know, I know. I'm as shocked as you are...


Since it's pretty well given that a sizable majority of GOP politicians are in the closet, this is their way of making sure their secret partners are taken care of.
 
2014-02-12 02:04:30 PM  

scottydoesntknow: tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.

Churches can refuse to marry any heterosexual couples for any reason, so they can still refuse same-sex couples.


True, but sometimes the courts throw out the baby with the bathwater and in the interim the laws backfire (see the Utah ruling on same sex marriage).
 
2014-02-12 02:04:31 PM  
When they find out that Muslins can use this law too it'll be repealed faster than you can say "Admiral Ackbar".
 
2014-02-12 02:04:42 PM  

inglixthemad: So, because I'm a Catholic and hate Protestants I'm cool to discriminate against them.

Good to know.


No, that's discrimination. However, because I'm Baptist, I'm now free to discriminate against those pagan idolater Catholics.
 
2014-02-12 02:04:45 PM  
Just want to remind everyone that the Kansas City area is no more derpy than most other cities in the US. It's mostly the rest of the state that goes full retard.

/recent transplant, it's a great town, good BBQ and culture,
 
2014-02-12 02:04:48 PM  

busy chillin': keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that.


What war did we lose?


The culture war.

Kansas was Union State.
 
2014-02-12 02:05:21 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Bloody William: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

I... I hate you, Mr. Macheers. I've never met you, but I actually have some small spark of hate for the sentiment and hypocrisy you display.

Small?  SMALL spark of hate?  You're a better person than me, apparently.

Spark

of hate?  I'd dowse him in napalm and use that spark to ignite him.  I am, however, compassionate enough to piss on him while he's on fire.

/(I know.  That's why I used napalm)
 
2014-02-12 02:06:02 PM  

cannotsuggestaname: keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that. They're free to go anytime they feel like it, but they don't get to take the infrastructure and resources with them. I'm sure there are several flights a day leaving Kansas heading towards another country. : )

Regarding this law, what farking joke. These bigots are too stupid to realize they lost this debate. This law won't stand up to the first challenge.

well Kansas was part of the Union, so they didn't secede and they fought those that did secede. Kansas was admitted in to the Union in 1861 and provided 20k+ troops to the Union side of the conflict.


Seriously! And we are proud of these facts and being admitted as a Free State.
 
2014-02-12 02:06:12 PM  
Do the "sincerely held religious beliefs" need to be backed up by institutional doctrine? Or can it just be what your un-medicated schizophrenic head imagines is true?
 
2014-02-12 02:06:36 PM  

dr_blasto: tarkin1: You can not practice human sacrifice simply because you are practicing Incan High Priest.

Crap. There goes my plan for the weekend.


Hey, hey, hold on there a minute, dr_blasto meant you can't do it legally. Just do it out of sight and have a great weekend.
 
2014-02-12 02:06:45 PM  
Let's ask an actual Old Testament believer (and religious scholar) for his opinion: "Bashing Gays is Not 'Religion'".

// not like they'll take a Jew's word for it
// they don't even listen to Jesus anymore
 
2014-02-12 02:07:30 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Mrembo:Good luck with that.
I could head over to Topeka and kick him in the balls if you think that would work better


It would.

/Can we give you a list of other people who need their balls kicked??? (I'm looking at you Rand Paul).
 
2014-02-12 02:07:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Sin_City_Superhero: The GOP is cutting off their nose to spite their face. If their goal is to keep benefits from gay people, this isn't the way to go about it. In fact, this law is almost certain to get tossed, either by the State Supreme Court, or the SCOTUS. And that will serve to confirm the rights of the gays. I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through. I know, I know. I'm as shocked as you are...

I'd say there's a good argument it's  already unconstitutional under  Romer v.Evans. There, there was a Colorado constitutional amendment that banned sexual orientation from being considered in anti-discrimination laws. As the state supreme court said:
Amendment 2... seeks only to prevent the adoption of anti-discrimination laws intended to protect gays, lesbians, and bisexuals.

And, as Kennedy wrote in the opinion ruling it unconstitutional:
It is a fair, if not necessary, inference from the broad language of the amendment that it deprives gays and lesbians even of the protection of general laws and policies that prohibit arbitrary discrimination in governmental and private settings...
Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

I would say that the same analysis applies here.


I agree, but I also wonder if this analysis isn't missing the point, which is that 'tards like this guy aren't proposing the bill with the serious expectation that it be passed and enacted, but rather that he be seen to be pandering to his target audience's prejudices.
 
2014-02-12 02:07:36 PM  
Nothing funnier than the majority religion (and vast majority at that) claiming to be the ones who are persecuted.  Wait, did I say nothing funnier?  I meant nothing more pathetic.
 
2014-02-12 02:07:57 PM  

meat0918: busy chillin': keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that.


What war did we lose?

The culture war.

Kansas was Union State.


I know we were a Union State. I wanted that guy to reply. It sounded like he thought we were a Confederate state.
 
2014-02-12 02:08:21 PM  
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
 
2014-02-12 02:08:22 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Let's ask an actual Old Testament believer (and religious scholar) for his opinion: "Bashing Gays is Not 'Religion'".

// not like they'll take a Jew's word for it
// they don't even listen to Jesus anymore


Well, of course not. He was a Jew after-all. Why would they listen to him?
 
2014-02-12 02:08:48 PM  
Laser-like focus on job creation!
 
2014-02-12 02:08:53 PM  

Karac: Mrembo: tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.

What is their response to you? (Your coworkers / family).

I asked that of my pastor once.  He just made a pissed off face and walked away.

Him: "Allowing gays to change the definition of marriage will irreparably harm the institution of marriage!"
Me: "Really?  So you're saying that if two guys go down to the county courthouse and get hitched, you'll stop loving your wife?  You'd have to divorce her and leave the kids?  Tell you what, let me see your phone for a second, I think she needs to know just how small of a thread her relationship is hanging on by."


Ha ha ha ha! Nice!

Do you still belong to that church?
 
2014-02-12 02:09:01 PM  
It amazes me how close geographically Kansas is to Colorado and at the same time how far apart we are.

More former Cali folk here I bet.
 
2014-02-12 02:09:12 PM  
So now they support sharia law?
 
2014-02-12 02:09:49 PM  
Clearly the CRA discriminated against bigots.
 
2014-02-12 02:09:59 PM  

busy chillin': keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that.


What war did we lose?


Sorry, referring to shiatkickers wanting to secede, not Kansas in particular, which I do realize was part of the Union.

'Course, if my memory serves me correctly, there were quite a few Folk who did want to secede in Kansas.

Anyway, my point was, the secessionists lost, and modern secessionists are free to leave anytime they choose.
 
2014-02-12 02:10:05 PM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-02-12 02:10:25 PM  
FTA:  While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

There are plenty of people who will support this. I was almost denied a fishing license in Augusta, Kansas once because my last name wasn't the same as my husband's.

If I had the money (because I sure won't make any doing this), it would be fun to move back, open a restaurant, and put a sign in the window saying "Only serving Mormon transgender mixed-race Democrats".  That ought to piss off pretty much every demographic in Kansas.
 
2014-02-12 02:10:54 PM  

Stone Meadow: I agree, but I also wonder if this analysis isn't missing the point, which is that 'tards like this guy aren't proposing the bill with the serious expectation that it be passed and enacted, but rather that he be seen to be pandering to his target audience's prejudices.


It's more than that. This didn't just get brought up in committee where people laughed and said "This will make you look good Bob, but we really can't vote/pass this because it's unconstitutional. But good show for the rubes". It passed the actual House in Kansas. Now it's on to the Senate there.
 
2014-02-12 02:10:57 PM  
hmm... I accidently something there in that last post so hard I don't even know what I accidented.
 
2014-02-12 02:11:01 PM  

Mrembo: Voiceofreason01: Mrembo:Good luck with that.
I could head over to Topeka and kick him in the balls if you think that would work better

It would.

/Can we give you a list of other people who need their balls kicked??? (I'm looking at you Rand Paul).


Here's the roll call for the Kansas House for the bill in question. Everybody who voted "Yea" can be on the short list for a swift kick to the genitals.
 
2014-02-12 02:11:56 PM  

tobcc: Mrembo: tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.

What is their response to you? (Your coworkers / family).

Usually something on the lines that I am *just* wrong, cause they said so.  But a lady at work realized she was just being bigoted and now doesn't say anything.


At least you reached one person. Countless more to go.
 
2014-02-12 02:11:57 PM  
In the below photo, I will let the viewer determine which person represents the state of Kansas and which person represents Article Six of the United States Constitution (Clause 2), also known as the Supremacy Clause:

i78.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-12 02:12:12 PM  

Karac: Theaetetus: kidgenius: FTFB(ill):
treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid

Schweet.. I'm going to go open a wedding cake business in Topeka. You come to me and you are a white man and a white woman wanting to get married?

DENIED!

Technically, it's possible... From the bill:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual 
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any 
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious 
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender...
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar 
arrangement as valid.

You'd have to argue that your sincerely held religious beliefs were that heterosexual marriages were an abomination. Or, I suppose, that you believe in egalitarian marriages, and so a traditional marriage of a patriarch and chattel would be a sin, and therefore refuse to serve such people. I think the Unitarians could go for that.

That's not hard.  It says 'sincerely' held religious beliefs, not actual tenets of your faith.  It's written that way specifically so that bigots won't have to actually read their bibles enough to be able to point out where it says gays can't get married if they're sued - they just have to believe that gays should get married.  Because Jebus.

As an example: Kidgenius could say that it is his sincerely held belief that the heterosexual population of Kansas should all be given a good smiting for being bad neighbors (Sodom wasn't destroyed for sodomy, but because its population wanted to rape tourists).  As such, he cannot solemnize marriages for people who are so clearly behaving against the will of God.  Just as a Catholic church could refuse to marry two Protestants for not sharing the faith.


But, it also says that the action must be contrary to a sincerely held belief  regarding sex or gender. Being a bad neighbor isn't related to sex or gender. I think my proposed examples were better, since they're directly based on sex or gender.

You are correct though that you don't need to demonstrate that it's a tenet of the religion. If you have a sincerely held belief that patriarchal relationships are sinful, then you could refuse service, without needing to point to where in your religious book it says that. From the EEOC:
Factors that - either alone or in combination - might undermine an employee's assertion that he sincerely holds the religious belief at issue include:
whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief;
whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons;
whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons); and
whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons. However, none of these factors is dispositive.
 
2014-02-12 02:12:12 PM  

exick: granting public and private employees the right to deny services, including unemployment benefits and foster care, to same-sex couples on the basis of religious freedom.

O_o


Came into the thread to note this exact thing. WHAT THE ACTUAL FARK? What's next, getting denied a driver's license, building permit or voter registration 'cause you're one of them gay-o-sexuals?

Was the Sick tag too sick to show up for work today?
 
2014-02-12 02:12:53 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


"No Color" is OK then? "You" are not welcome is an acceptable social norm, "Your type" not welcome is not.
 
2014-02-12 02:13:00 PM  

jst3p: It amazes me how close geographically Kansas is to Colorado and at the same time how far apart we are.

More former Cali folk here I bet.


It has nothing to do with the California transplants and everything to do with the fact that there is absolutely fark all to do in Kansas. It's flat, there's dirt. Rogering your cousin and shooting at cans is the best most people can hope for out there, over 60% of the state doesn't even have internet better than dialup.

Very easy to preach to a captive audience when the Sunday sermon is the most exciting part of the week.
 
2014-02-12 02:13:53 PM  
I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.  I actually know the wife (dated her in high school) of one of the GOP bigwigs in the Kansas Government, and she used to be a very liberal person.  Then something happened to her...  Kansas has always been pretty Jesusy, but it's turned incredibly virulent in the last 10 years.

I live about 2 miles from this dirtbag Macheers, and I can attest that everybody around here is the wealthy-class, "I got mine, fark you", afraid-of-everything kind of GOP bastard.  Somehow that plutocrat idealology gets a religious nut sidecar and that's cool to these people.  It's turned the local school district from one of the best in the nation in the early 90s to just another mediocre, underfunded indoctrination machine for Koch clones.

I'm the only non-lunatic, non-religious person in my extended family except my lesbian cousin who moved to Oregon in the 70s and my father who has turned from the dark side in the last 10 years because of the growing evil of Brownbackistan.  Everybody else in my family lost their minds when a black guy was elected president.  Before you ask "Why don't you move", well, it's my home and I'd rather stay and try to fix it, or if I can't do that, try to protect my nieces and nephews from becoming pod-people.

Again, I'm so sorry for Kansas.  All I can say is please enjoy KU hoops as a very small, somewhat redeeming aspect of this rectum of a state.

/crying in the corner of a rectangular state...
 
2014-02-12 02:14:07 PM  
Whoops, no linky. In plaintext: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/04/orthodox-rabbi-on-fox-news-bas hing-gays-is-not/197926
 
2014-02-12 02:14:10 PM  

TheNewJesus: God damn these people waste a lot of time and effort pushing their bigotry...


And money.  All from "small-government, fiscal conservatives".
 
2014-02-12 02:14:21 PM  

kidgenius: Stone Meadow: I agree, but I also wonder if this analysis isn't missing the point, which is that 'tards like this guy aren't proposing the bill with the serious expectation that it be passed and enacted, but rather that he be seen to be pandering to his target audience's prejudices.

It's more than that. This didn't just get brought up in committee where people laughed and said "This will make you look good Bob, but we really can't vote/pass this because it's unconstitutional. But good show for the rubes". It passed the actual House in Kansas. Now it's on to the Senate there.


Point conceded. After all, this IS Brownbackistan we're talking about.
 
2014-02-12 02:14:58 PM  
so the USA is about as free and progressive as Russia?

hooray.
 
2014-02-12 02:15:25 PM  

Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life


I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.
 
2014-02-12 02:15:59 PM  

Rann Xerox: In the below photo, I will let the viewer determine which person represents the state of Kansas and which person represents Article Six of the United States Constitution (Clause 2), also known as the Supremacy Clause:


Neither?

Anti-discrimination law is up to the states under the 10th Amendment, subject to the requirements of equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment. The Supremacy Clause is only tangentially related to this in saying "go look at Amendment 14". Before the 14th Amendment, states could - and did - have very different discrimination laws. In fact, many states had (gasp) state religions, which would violate the 1st Amendment if the Supremacy Clause was naively applied in such a manner as you suggest.
 
2014-02-12 02:16:20 PM  
The Kansas state House advanced a bill on Tuesday aimed at granting public and private employees the right to deny services, including unemployment benefits and foster care, to same-sex couples on the basis of religious freedom.

Since when are Govt services a part of religious freedom?
 
2014-02-12 02:16:48 PM  

Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.  I actually know the wife (dated her in high school) of one of the GOP bigwigs in the Kansas Government, and she used to be a very liberal person.  Then something happened to her...  Kansas has always been pretty Jesusy, but it's turned incredibly virulent in the last 10 years.

I live about 2 miles from this dirtbag Macheers, and I can attest that everybody around here is the wealthy-class, "I got mine, fark you", afraid-of-everything kind of GOP bastard.  Somehow that plutocrat idealology gets a religious nut sidecar and that's cool to these people.  It's turned the local school district from one of the best in the nation in the early 90s to just another mediocre, underfunded indoctrination machine for Koch clones.

I'm the only non-lunatic, non-religious person in my extended family except my lesbian cousin who moved to Oregon in the 70s and my father who has turned from the dark side in the last 10 years because of the growing evil of Brownbackistan.  Everybody else in my family lost their minds when a black guy was elected president.  Before you ask "Why don't you move", well, it's my home and I'd rather stay and try to fix it, or if I can't do that, try to protect my nieces and nephews from becoming pod-people.

Again, I'm so sorry for Kansas.  All I can say is please enjoy KU hoops as a very small, somewhat redeeming aspect of this rectum of a state.

/crying in the corner of a rectangular state...


Tell ya what, go slapping bumper stickers that say "Four More Years" with the O's replaced by Obama's campaign logo. Alternatively, you could slap rainbow bumper stickers or the equality bumper sticker (yellow "=" on blue background). Preferably do this to the pick-up trucks. Extra points if said trucks have a set of nutz hanging from the tow hitch.
 
2014-02-12 02:19:19 PM  

Bermuda59: Since when are Govt services a part of religious freedom?


See, people have to actually provide the govt service. And those people have religious freedoms. Therefore, ex post facto nauseum, those people can't help "teh gayz" if it is against their freedom of religious expression.

or something
 
2014-02-12 02:19:35 PM  

Bermuda59: The Kansas state House advanced a bill on Tuesday aimed at granting public and private employees the right to deny services, including unemployment benefits and foster care, to same-sex couples on the basis of religious freedom.

Since when are Govt services a part of religious freedom?


Government services aren't a part of religious freedom. That's a silly thing to believe. Where would you even get that idea?

Looking down your nose at others, happily grinding them under your bootheels (well, until they get "saved", anyway) - THAT's some of that good, old-time religious freedom, and exactly what was meant by "care for the stranger in your midst" and "love the sinner, hate the sin".
 
2014-02-12 02:20:23 PM  

kidgenius: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.  I actually know the wife (dated her in high school) of one of the GOP bigwigs in the Kansas Government, and she used to be a very liberal person.  Then something happened to her...  Kansas has always been pretty Jesusy, but it's turned incredibly virulent in the last 10 years.

I live about 2 miles from this dirtbag Macheers, and I can attest that everybody around here is the wealthy-class, "I got mine, fark you", afraid-of-everything kind of GOP bastard.  Somehow that plutocrat idealology gets a religious nut sidecar and that's cool to these people.  It's turned the local school district from one of the best in the nation in the early 90s to just another mediocre, underfunded indoctrination machine for Koch clones.

I'm the only non-lunatic, non-religious person in my extended family except my lesbian cousin who moved to Oregon in the 70s and my father who has turned from the dark side in the last 10 years because of the growing evil of Brownbackistan.  Everybody else in my family lost their minds when a black guy was elected president.  Before you ask "Why don't you move", well, it's my home and I'd rather stay and try to fix it, or if I can't do that, try to protect my nieces and nephews from becoming pod-people.

Again, I'm so sorry for Kansas.  All I can say is please enjoy KU hoops as a very small, somewhat redeeming aspect of this rectum of a state.

/crying in the corner of a rectangular state...

Tell ya what, go slapping bumper stickers that say "Four More Years" with the O's replaced by Obama's campaign logo. Alternatively, you could slap rainbow bumper stickers or the equality bumper sticker (yellow "=" on blue background). Preferably do this to the pick-up trucks. Extra points if said trucks have a set of nutz hanging from the tow hitch.


He better do it at night and decked out in black. That very well could get you shot in Kansas. The bastard would probably get away with it, too. Jury might decide to go all jury nullification even.
 
2014-02-12 02:21:03 PM  

keylock71: busy chillin': keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that.


What war did we lose?

Sorry, referring to shiatkickers wanting to secede, not Kansas in particular, which I do realize was part of the Union.

'Course, if my memory serves me correctly, there were quite a few Folk who did want to secede in Kansas.

Anyway, my point was, the secessionists lost, and modern secessionists are free to leave anytime they choose.


okay cool. No sweat.
 
2014-02-12 02:22:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Rann Xerox: In the below photo, I will let the viewer determine which person represents the state of Kansas and which person represents Article Six of the United States Constitution (Clause 2), also known as the Supremacy Clause:

Neither?

Anti-discrimination law is up to the states under the 10th Amendment, subject to the requirements of equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment. The Supremacy Clause is only tangentially related to this in saying "go look at Amendment 14". Before the 14th Amendment, states could - and did - have very different discrimination laws. In fact, many states had (gasp) state religions, which would violate the 1st Amendment if the Supremacy Clause was naively applied in such a manner as you suggest.


Oh great, a Tenther.
 
2014-02-12 02:22:22 PM  

Voiceofreason01: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life

I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.


You're from Wyandotte County, how can you smell anything over the meth fumes?
 
2014-02-12 02:22:56 PM  

busy chillin': What war did we lose?


The Great War of Variances in Elevation
 
2014-02-12 02:24:17 PM  

iq_in_binary: kidgenius: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.  I actually know the wife (dated her in high school) of one of the GOP bigwigs in the Kansas Government, and she used to be a very liberal person.  Then something happened to her...  Kansas has always been pretty Jesusy, but it's turned incredibly virulent in the last 10 years.

I live about 2 miles from this dirtbag Macheers, and I can attest that everybody around here is the wealthy-class, "I got mine, fark you", afraid-of-everything kind of GOP bastard.  Somehow that plutocrat idealology gets a religious nut sidecar and that's cool to these people.  It's turned the local school district from one of the best in the nation in the early 90s to just another mediocre, underfunded indoctrination machine for Koch clones.

I'm the only non-lunatic, non-religious person in my extended family except my lesbian cousin who moved to Oregon in the 70s and my father who has turned from the dark side in the last 10 years because of the growing evil of Brownbackistan.  Everybody else in my family lost their minds when a black guy was elected president.  Before you ask "Why don't you move", well, it's my home and I'd rather stay and try to fix it, or if I can't do that, try to protect my nieces and nephews from becoming pod-people.

Again, I'm so sorry for Kansas.  All I can say is please enjoy KU hoops as a very small, somewhat redeeming aspect of this rectum of a state.

/crying in the corner of a rectangular state...

Tell ya what, go slapping bumper stickers that say "Four More Years" with the O's replaced by Obama's campaign logo. Alternatively, you could slap rainbow bumper stickers or the equality bumper sticker (yellow "=" on blue background). Preferably do this to the pick-up trucks. Extra points if said trucks have a set of nutz hanging from the tow hitch.

He better do it at night and decked out in black. That very well could get you shot in ...


If I did it at night, with a burning torch, and dressed in white with a pointy mask on, somebody would probably buy me a beer.
 
2014-02-12 02:24:49 PM  
FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
 
2014-02-12 02:25:03 PM  

scottydoesntknow: TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.

Christ we already had this conversation last week with the guy who refuses to serve ni-*DONG*, f*gs, freaks, cripples, and anyone else he doesn't like

IT'S AGAINST THE LAW. If you are a business that is open to the general public, you don't get to decide not to serve someone simply because they're gay/black/asian/young/old/crippled/etc.

Would you be making that same statement if the wedding cake company (who is NOT a religious institution) decided to not serve a black or interracial couple getting married?


Just as long as we don't have to serve the Irish.
 
2014-02-12 02:25:10 PM  

Aquapope: Voiceofreason01: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life

I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.

You're from Wyandotte County, how can you smell anything over the meth fumes?


Lol, I'm from Johnson County too, it's just easier to say I'm from Kansas City then to explain which suburb I'm currently living in. I feel your pain.
 
2014-02-12 02:25:27 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


I have you farkied as a racist who thinks it should be legal to refuse business to black people.  You're either trolling or you're just hoping that laws like this will eventually come around to the minorities you REALLY want to discriminate against.
 
2014-02-12 02:25:59 PM  
And people still think GMO corn is safe. Allow me to present Kansas.
 
2014-02-12 02:26:11 PM  

cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


no.
 
2014-02-12 02:26:39 PM  

cchris_39: FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


If there's anything a county with 1000 people in it has, it's an excess of county clerks and social workers just sitting around.
 
2014-02-12 02:26:52 PM  
Tuber-conservatives!

/I got nothin'
 
2014-02-12 02:27:40 PM  

cchris_39: FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


And if you are in the middle of bum-fark nowhere and you have one sheriff and two deputies that make up the local police department and they are all bigoted a-holes that dont' want to help you....what are you going to do?
 
2014-02-12 02:27:47 PM  
Why stop at same sex couples? Why not allow discrimination against any "marriage" that doesn't conform to a particular set of religious principles.

If it's OK for an evangelical Christian to refuse to serve a gay couple, it should be OK for a devout Catholic to refuse to serve a hetero couple that was married in a civil ceremony.

Why is Kansas discriminating against devout Catholics?
 
2014-02-12 02:28:04 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


If those cake makers had any sense at all, they would have just said, 'Sorry, our schedule is already full that weekend'.

If they were really smart, they would talk with a competitor and send the gay clients that way. Like 'hey, we might be booked up that weekend, but check QueerCakes to see if they are available, here's their card'
 
2014-02-12 02:28:06 PM  

cchris_39: If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.


What if all employees in that office object?
 
2014-02-12 02:28:14 PM  

BSABSVR: busy chillin': What war did we lose?

The Great War of Variances in Elevation


Yes, true, but Manhattan is pretty with it's rolling hills and Lawrence has a couple hills.

Funny story, my neighbor had his grandson up from Florida and they were riding around and he thought it was amazing. "Grandpa, can we go down that road with the hills again?!?!"

Still makes me laugh.
 
2014-02-12 02:28:17 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


Sundown States.  Coming soon to the Republican platform.
 
2014-02-12 02:29:31 PM  

Aquapope: Voiceofreason01: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life

I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.

You're from Wyandotte County, how can you smell anything over the meth fumes?


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-12 02:29:54 PM  

ladodger34: TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.

If those cake makers had any sense at all, they would have just said, 'Sorry, our schedule is already full that weekend'.

If they were really smart, they would talk with a competitor and send the gay clients that way. Like 'hey, we might be booked up that weekend, but check QueerCakes to see if they are available, here's their card'


But how would we know that they don't approve of gay marriage???

/Imho, it wasn't about "being smart", it was about "being martyrs"...
 
2014-02-12 02:30:33 PM  

Aquapope: Voiceofreason01: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life

I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.

You're from Wyandotte County, how can you smell anything over the meth fumes?


I'm in Lawrence. I can barely see you guys fighting through all this weed smoke.
 
2014-02-12 02:30:38 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: [farm4.staticflickr.com image 640x210]



It's true. Most Southern blacks don't want integration.Because if things integrated they'd have to associate with the dumb-assed, inbred, peckerwoods from the article.


They'd rather mingle with a better class of people.
 
2014-02-12 02:31:01 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.

I have you farkied as a racist who thinks it should be legal to refuse business to black people.  You're either trolling or you're just hoping that laws like this will eventually come around to the minorities you REALLY want to discriminate against.


I'll be shocked if he comes back in and tries to double-down on the derp. I'm sure his phone is blowing up with Fark alerts.
 
2014-02-12 02:31:03 PM  
Jeezuz tapdancing christ on a cracker.

someone just shoot all of them please.
 
2014-02-12 02:31:41 PM  

cchris_39: FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


"Separate but equal"...isn't.

You're hired by the state to perform a service. FULL STOP.

If you cannot provide that service in "good conscience" to 100% of the people who legally request it - be they white, middle aged, able-bodied Christians or young, brown-skinned, turban-wearing, thrice disabled (one of them an Autism-spectrum disorder) gay Sikhs - find a different job. You don't get to substitute your judgement for the state's when it comes to things the state's already decided on with legislatures and courts and everything.
 
2014-02-12 02:32:11 PM  

cchris_39: FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


How 'bout this compromise: Do the farking job you're paid to do and provide service to your fellow citizens without letting your bronze-age barbarism get in the way, and you won't be fired for taking a paycheck without fulfilling your employment duties.

That seems not only pretty reasonable, but actually ought to be the law everywhere in a country ostensibly founded on personal liberty and separation of church and state.
 
2014-02-12 02:33:02 PM  

kidgenius: And if you are in the middle of bum-fark nowhere and you have one sheriff and two deputies that make up the local police department and they are all bigoted a-holes that dont' want to help you....what are you going to do?


Probably move.

What was Wilford Brimley line, "we have 11 Democrats in the county and we know who they are.......".
 
2014-02-12 02:33:59 PM  

Mrembo: ladodger34: TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.

If those cake makers had any sense at all, they would have just said, 'Sorry, our schedule is already full that weekend'.

If they were really smart, they would talk with a competitor and send the gay clients that way. Like 'hey, we might be booked up that weekend, but check QueerCakes to see if they are available, here's their card'

But how would we know that they don't approve of gay marriage???

/Imho, it wasn't about "being smart", it was about "being martyrs"...


No doubt. They wanted everyone to know they hated the homogheys.
 
2014-02-12 02:34:47 PM  

busy chillin': Aquapope: Voiceofreason01: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life

I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.

You're from Wyandotte County, how can you smell anything over the meth fumes?

I'm in Lawrence. I can barely see you guys fighting through all this weed smoke.


lived in Lawrence for a while, I kinda miss it but sadly jobs are few and far between and it's too far for me to want to commute.
 
2014-02-12 02:35:36 PM  

Theaetetus: Anti-discrimination law is up to the states under the 10th Amendment


You cited the 10th Amendment?  That's adorable.
 
2014-02-12 02:35:38 PM  

cchris_39: If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.


If an employee won't do their job, why are they even there?
 
2014-02-12 02:36:49 PM  

scottydoesntknow: I'll be shocked if he comes back in and tries to double-down on the derp. I'm sure his phone is blowing up with Fark alerts.


Eh.  Not like we don't have a lot of troll accounts who don't like to thread shiat once and then leave the room.
 
2014-02-12 02:36:50 PM  

cchris_39: kidgenius: And if you are in the middle of bum-fark nowhere and you have one sheriff and two deputies that make up the local police department and they are all bigoted a-holes that dont' want to help you....what are you going to do?

Probably move.

What was Wilford Brimley line, "we have 11 Democrats in the county and we know who they are.......".


What if you can't afford to move?
 
2014-02-12 02:38:59 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.


The people are more than welcome to secede.. the land... belongs to the union

/have fun!
 
2014-02-12 02:39:14 PM  

iq_in_binary: kidgenius: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.  I actually know the wife (dated her in high school) of one of the GOP bigwigs in the Kansas Government, and she used to be a very liberal person.  Then something happened to her...  Kansas has always been pretty Jesusy, but it's turned incredibly virulent in the last 10 years.

I live about 2 miles from this dirtbag Macheers, and I can attest that everybody around here is the wealthy-class, "I got mine, fark you", afraid-of-everything kind of GOP bastard.  Somehow that plutocrat idealology gets a religious nut sidecar and that's cool to these people.  It's turned the local school district from one of the best in the nation in the early 90s to just another mediocre, underfunded indoctrination machine for Koch clones.

I'm the only non-lunatic, non-religious person in my extended family except my lesbian cousin who moved to Oregon in the 70s and my father who has turned from the dark side in the last 10 years because of the growing evil of Brownbackistan.  Everybody else in my family lost their minds when a black guy was elected president.  Before you ask "Why don't you move", well, it's my home and I'd rather stay and try to fix it, or if I can't do that, try to protect my nieces and nephews from becoming pod-people.

Again, I'm so sorry for Kansas.  All I can say is please enjoy KU hoops as a very small, somewhat redeeming aspect of this rectum of a state.

/crying in the corner of a rectangular state...

Tell ya what, go slapping bumper stickers that say "Four More Years" with the O's replaced by Obama's campaign logo. Alternatively, you could slap rainbow bumper stickers or the equality bumper sticker (yellow "=" on blue background). Preferably do this to the pick-up trucks. Extra points if said trucks have a set of nutz hanging from the tow hitch.

He better do it at night and decked out in black. That very well could get you shot in ...


At night, looking black, perchance wearing a hoodie ... you think that would make him less likely to get shot at?
 
2014-02-12 02:39:57 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: cchris_39: If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.

If an employee won't do their job, why are they even there?


So now we are talking about Republicans in DC?
 
2014-02-12 02:40:01 PM  

cchris_39: FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.



I would love to get a job as a clerk and deny all sorts of services to people who I disagree with on "religious beliefs" and let see how reasonable they react
 
2014-02-12 02:41:39 PM  

Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.  I actually know the wife (dated her in high school) of one of the GOP bigwigs in the Kansas Government, and she used to be a very liberal person.  Then something happened to her...  Kansas has always been pretty Jesusy, but it's turned incredibly virulent in the last 10 years.

I live about 2 miles from this dirtbag Macheers, and I can attest that everybody around here is the wealthy-class, "I got mine, fark you", afraid-of-everything kind of GOP bastard.  Somehow that plutocrat idealology gets a religious nut sidecar and that's cool to these people.  It's turned the local school district from one of the best in the nation in the early 90s to just another mediocre, underfunded indoctrination machine for Koch clones.

I'm the only non-lunatic, non-religious person in my extended family except my lesbian cousin who moved to Oregon in the 70s and my father who has turned from the dark side in the last 10 years because of the growing evil of Brownbackistan.  Everybody else in my family lost their minds when a black guy was elected president.  Before you ask "Why don't you move", well, it's my home and I'd rather stay and try to fix it, or if I can't do that, try to protect my nieces and nephews from becoming pod-people.

Again, I'm so sorry for Kansas.  All I can say is please enjoy KU hoops as a very small, somewhat redeeming aspect of this rectum of a state.

/crying in the corner of a rectangular state...


We moved to the MIssouri side over 10 years ago for the same reason. It seemed like common discourse had left and schools were going down hill (and moving further south).  There was a feeling of "I got mine" and we didnt like it.  Sadly way up north where we live now (Liberty area), it has turned into the same thing.  But we are 7 years from paying off the house and kids are in High School now so we are stuck for a few years.

I grew up in Colorado which always leaned liberal but was fairly conservative growing up (they shut down a strip club to "save the children" . But it seams like it has gone very liberal now.  So we may move back when the kids are grown. We joke about opening a pot shop in Kanarado (town on the Kansas/ Colorado border). We figure like all the closet gays in Kansas, there is a huge number of Pot Heads and you would make a mint.
 
2014-02-12 02:42:38 PM  

cchris_39: kidgenius: And if you are in the middle of bum-fark nowhere and you have one sheriff and two deputies that make up the local police department and they are all bigoted a-holes that dont' want to help you....what are you going to do?

Probably move.

What was Wilford Brimley line, "we have 11 Democrats in the county and we know who they are.......".


Oh christ, you're a states-righter...

Look, I'm all for states-rights. But, being discriminatory is not a right that the government gets to have.
 
2014-02-12 02:42:58 PM  

cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.
 
2014-02-12 02:44:50 PM  
tobcc:

I clicked your link. Kanarado is in Kansas. You would have to go down the road a bit to Burlington, CO.
 
2014-02-12 02:50:45 PM  

busy chillin': keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that.


What war did we lose?


Bleeding Kansas 1854-1861.
 
2014-02-12 02:52:03 PM  
i1182.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-12 02:53:56 PM  

thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.


Do you think people should be forced to set aside their religious beliefs when other people are willing to serve you?
 
2014-02-12 02:56:33 PM  

cchris_39: thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.

Do you think people should be forced to set aside their religious beliefs when other people are willing to serve you?


Are they paid to serve me? If so, yes.
 
2014-02-12 02:57:57 PM  

All2morrowsparTs: busy chillin': keylock71: Pants full of macaroni!!: Just f**king secede already.

fark that... These shiatkickers already lost a war over that.


What war did we lose?

Bleeding Kansas 1854-1861.


My Kansas History teacher would be pissed right now, but we didn't lose, that was just the time-frame it took to figure it all out. If we had lost wouldn't we have been a slave state?

Like it matters now. It makes me wonder now if the Republicans are pissed they freed the slaves. That would really improve their bottom lines.
 
2014-02-12 03:02:33 PM  

cchris_39: thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.

Do you think people should be forced to set aside their religious beliefs when other people are willing to serve you?




Short Answer: Yes
Longer Answer: Hell Yes!
 
2014-02-12 03:05:47 PM  
Ah, so even though your services are not at all compromised you would force others to disregard their own religious beliefs.

Thanks for letting us know your true feelings on the matter.
 
2014-02-12 03:06:46 PM  

cchris_39: thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.

Do you think people should be forced to set aside their religious beliefs when other people are willing to serve you?


Umm... forced? No, they are free to find another job if their beliefs prevent them from doing this one.
 
2014-02-12 03:07:02 PM  

cchris_39: thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.

Do you think people should be forced to set aside their religious beliefs when other people are willing to serve you?.


[MS Word Paperclip]
Oops, looks like you phrased that as a question.  Don't worry, I modified it for you.  I know I'd sure hate to look like a bigoted arsehole.
 
2014-02-12 03:08:16 PM  

TerminalEchoes: Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.


Do you understand the purpose of anti-discrimination laws? Apparently not.

It becomes MUCH  more important in places such as small towns in rural areas, where there is only a single grocer, a single bank etc. and low income levels. Those people who are affected by the discrimination end up suffering an entirely arbitrary rise in cost of living, or, worse, an inability to receive important things like medical care  just because asshats like you think somehow that the freedom to discriminate should be upheld.

The only place where you tripe even comes close to stand up is in larger areas (cities, or suburbs) where there are multiple places where virtually every sort of business can be done. Guess what: It's not worth making an open set of rules and then tightening them just for the rural areas where it becomes crucial because...

1) The rural areas are more likely to suffer that sort of discrimination.

2) The state is under no requirement to give out business licenses, and can impose any restriction at all on having one.

If you hadn't already painted yourself as somewhat willfully ignorant, I'm sure my comment would be useful, but as it is, I expect you fully to somehow continue this insane idiocy, possibly with a dollop of "Why are you being intolerant of bigotry!!?!?!11" to drive home exactly how stupid you are.
 
2014-02-12 03:08:44 PM  
kansas is racist because it is afraid
 
2014-02-12 03:09:48 PM  

cchris_39: Ah, so even though your services are not at all compromised you would force others to disregard their own religious beliefs.


If you can't or won't do the job, quit.
 
2014-02-12 03:11:03 PM  

Rann Xerox: In the below photo, I will let the viewer determine which person represents the state of Kansas and which person represents Article Six of the United States Constitution (Clause 2), also known as the Supremacy Clause:

[i78.photobucket.com image 640x517]


Goddamn I love the look on Glenn Ford's face in that photo. Satisfaction.
 
2014-02-12 03:11:48 PM  

thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.


Not really, no. This is more the issue where Conservatives need to face the fact that, to any sane, thinking person, religion should not dictate civil rights and individual civil rights should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS trump state rights.
 
2014-02-12 03:13:02 PM  
If you're serving the public and you're asshooligan religion doesn't allow you to serve the public

why the sam-hell are you serving the public you hypocrites!

/they want to be seen as a legitimate business, without being one
 
2014-02-12 03:13:30 PM  

I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid


It makes me feel a little better that this kind of shiat is likely to be overturned in the courts soon, but each new piece of legislation and each new layer of official bigotry makes that process take a little longer and makes it a little more painful for everyone involved. It really pisses me off.
 
2014-02-12 03:14:21 PM  

Leishu: thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.

Not really, no. This is more the issue where Conservatives need to face the fact that, to any sane, thinking person, religion should not dictate civil rights and individual civil rights should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS trump state rights.


And they think Obama is shredding the constitution. But you know, it is hard to read all the way to first amendment.
 
2014-02-12 03:15:19 PM  

Voiceofreason01: I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid

It makes me feel a little better that this kind of shiat is likely to be overturned in the courts soon, but each new piece of legislation and each new layer of official bigotry makes that process take a little longer and makes it a little more painful for everyone involved. It really pisses me off.


those bigots are going to look so stupid 40 years from now
 
2014-02-12 03:15:23 PM  
the
 
2014-02-12 03:16:04 PM  
I say good. The sooner they pass this bill the sooner the Courts can overturn it.
 
2014-02-12 03:18:23 PM  

cchris_39: Ah, so even though your services are not at all compromised you would force others to disregard their own religious beliefs.

Thanks for letting us know your true feelings on the matter.


Just like black people had their own bathrooms, right? Nothing was compromised, and they had access to the same services as white people. I mean, how hard is it to find the Black Bathroom anyway? Weren't they usually right next to the White Bathrooms?
 
2014-02-12 03:19:08 PM  

I drunk what: Voiceofreason01: I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid

It makes me feel a little better that this kind of shiat is likely to be overturned in the courts soon, but each new piece of legislation and each new layer of official bigotry makes that process take a little longer and makes it a little more painful for everyone involved. It really pisses me off.

those bigots are going to look so stupid 40 years from now


They look stupid now.

40 years from now their kids and grandkids will also think they look stupid.
 
2014-02-12 03:19:54 PM  
I'm getting a job as a county clerk in Kansas.

My religion prohibits having contact with bigots and morons.

I'll be in once a month to pickup my check.
 
2014-02-12 03:20:37 PM  

I drunk what: Voiceofreason01: I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid

It makes me feel a little better that this kind of shiat is likely to be overturned in the courts soon, but each new piece of legislation and each new layer of official bigotry makes that process take a little longer and makes it a little more painful for everyone involved. It really pisses me off.

those bigots are going to look so stupid 40 years from now


Nope.  They look pretty stupid right now.
 
2014-02-12 03:21:12 PM  

pueblonative: BTW, do you think there would be a Democratic legislator in Kansas brave enough to call the Republitards bluff and say, "okay, let's up the list of exemptions from sex and gender to sex, creed, religion, race, gender, and physical/mental handicap"  Put the assholes on the spot and have them revote the entire discrimination act for Kansas.


I wouldn't bet on the Republicans backing down. At the last convention of the ruling Conservative Party of Canada (who are supposed to be slightly less crazy than the Republicans) they officially adopted exactly that position - they want to recognize "sincerely held religious belief" as an ironclad defense against any charge of discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our BoR). I suspect the Kansas GOP would be ecstatic to have the chance to do the same, no matter how short-lived the result may be.
 
2014-02-12 03:22:00 PM  

Rann Xerox: I drunk what: Voiceofreason01: I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid

It makes me feel a little better that this kind of shiat is likely to be overturned in the courts soon, but each new piece of legislation and each new layer of official bigotry makes that process take a little longer and makes it a little more painful for everyone involved. It really pisses me off.

those bigots are going to look so stupid 40 years from now

Nope.  They look pretty stupid right now.


In fairness, I'm pretty sure they'll still look stupid, only moreso, in 40 years. :)
 
2014-02-12 03:23:24 PM  

Dr Dreidel: cchris_39: Ah, so even though your services are not at all compromised you would force others to disregard their own religious beliefs.

Thanks for letting us know your true feelings on the matter.

Just like black people had their own bathrooms, right? Nothing was compromised, and they had access to the same services as white people. I mean, how hard is it to find the Black Bathroom anyway? Weren't they usually right next to the White Bathrooms?


I know right?  And they always got to eat around back.  "Around back" was always this magical land of mystery and adventure.  How come I was never invited?  What was back there?  Couches?  Bowling?  Jawbreaker dispensers?  A fountain of chocolate champagne?

Oh wait, no, it was dilapidation.
 
2014-02-12 03:25:15 PM  
I wonder if the good citizens of Kansas realize how many millions of dollars they're pissing away passing laws like this that will, without a doubt, get tossed once it hits the court system.
 
2014-02-12 03:25:20 PM  

cchris_39: thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.

Do you think people should be forced to set aside their religious beliefs when other people are willing to serve you?


No, I think I should be served by the official that I am currently paying to serve me.
 
2014-02-12 03:25:29 PM  
I just discovered that my rep voted for this piece of crap and it has me legitimately thinking about running for office for the first time.  The guy is in a fairly moderate district so I think he could be beaten and the filing fee is only $105 or 2% of registered voters on a petition (which is probably about 150-200 people or so).  This whole thing just pisses me off and makes the entire state look backwards as hell.

/Submitted with a better headline.
//Basically just the discrimination quotation.
 
2014-02-12 03:26:22 PM  
This is from another discussion I was having about it:

My big issue with that is, in practice, entire towns could be locked out.
Say a same-sex couple with kids (for the cheesy emotional impact) is traveling across the state during a snowstorm, and I-70 gets closed. They have to stop at, say, WaKeeney, Kansas, population 1,800.
They're denied lodging at all five motels in town because they're a same-sex couple, and it's legal according to this bill.


And in rural Kansas this is a HIGHLY likely scenario.

The pastor at my wife's church refused to let us get married in his church because I hadn't "accepted Jesus as my savior." Well within his right to do so. But to have a state employee refuse to take my money for taxes or car tags or any other service because I'm not a fan of the Jesus fan-club, that's ENTIRELY different.
 
2014-02-12 03:27:39 PM  

I drunk what: those bigots are going to look so stupid 40 years from now


they look stupid now.
 
2014-02-12 03:29:05 PM  

TheNewJesus: God damn these people waste a lot of time and effort pushing their bigotry...


Look on the bright side. The challenges to the law will cost them millions and it will be overturned.
 
2014-02-12 03:30:20 PM  
Some questions:

Can I start my own religion & discriminate against legislators, or do I need a pre-approved religion? If so, can I discriminate against people who are left handed? Against the "wrong kind" of christian? Against people who eat shellfish? Against people who wear material mixed of wool and linen together?
 
2014-02-12 03:30:33 PM  
I can't imagine this will stand up to even the barest amount of scrutiny, though I do imagine the lawyers are already lining up to take shots at it. And then we'll have to listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments, over how mean old Obummer Hussein and his goosestepping federal brownshirts trod all over States' Rights.
 
2014-02-12 03:31:20 PM  
meh.  wake me when the courts say that this shiat is ok.  Until then, it's one guy's talking point.
 
2014-02-12 03:32:06 PM  

The Lizard People: I can't imagine this will stand up to even the barest amount of scrutiny, though I do imagine the lawyers are already lining up to take shots at it. And then we'll have to listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments, over how mean old Obummer Hussein and his goosestepping federal brownshirts trod all over States' Rights.


To borrow a line from Dodgeball:  I'm pretty sure this is what Lawyers call, "The Jackpot."
 
2014-02-12 03:32:21 PM  

cchris_39: Ah, so even though your services are not at all compromised you would force others to disregard their own religious beliefs.

Thanks for letting us know your true feelings on the matter.


So, apparently, you would have no problem with a private business putting up a "No African-Americans served here sign"...

Thanks for letting us know your true feelings on the matter. It's refreshing to see an unashamed, ignorant bigot with the strength of their convictions.
 
2014-02-12 03:35:04 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Can we just tag and release all the people that live(ed) in Kansas please.  Just a tattoo on their forehead that says 'I chose to live in Kansas' or something like that.  That way if you ever see one speaking, you are forewarned.


I currently live in Lawrence and think this bill is abhorrent at best. Should I get stamped too?
 
2014-02-12 03:36:07 PM  

cchris_39: FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


So, if there are, say, three people working for the state in some kind of capacity at some office and all three go to the same pentecostal gay-hating church and cannot speak to the evil gay people for fear of sin, what then? What if there aren't any other clowns to do the work?

Just like the licensed pharmacist: do your farking job and shut your pie hole, and keep in mind that your job is not to make moral religious determinations about the farker in front of you. That's the internet's job.
 
2014-02-12 03:36:41 PM  

Tomahawk513: The Lizard People: I can't imagine this will stand up to even the barest amount of scrutiny, though I do imagine the lawyers are already lining up to take shots at it. And then we'll have to listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments, over how mean old Obummer Hussein and his goosestepping federal brownshirts trod all over States' Rights.

To borrow a line from Dodgeball:  I'm pretty sure this is what Lawyers call, "The Jackpot."


Lawyers write these laws. Lawyers have to go to court and argue for/against them.

Methinks there might be a bit of ensuring they have work for the next few years, billed $400 hours at a time.
 
2014-02-12 03:37:16 PM  
Once this self-fulfilling prophesy gets shut down in federal court, the herpaderpers are going to have all the ammo they need to retain their incumbency.

/Kansan
//interviewed with Lance Kinzer, didn't get the job
 
2014-02-12 03:38:19 PM  

Tomahawk513: I know right?  And they always got to eat around back.  "Around back" was always this magical land of mystery and adventure.  How come I was never invited?  What was back there?  Couches?  Bowling?  Jawbreaker dispensers?  A fountain of chocolate champagne?


Hey, baby, I can show you what's goin' on around back. Just slide a little closer and let me show you my fountain of chocolate champagne.
 
2014-02-12 03:39:14 PM  

cchris_39: FTA -

While government agencies would still be mandated to render services to Kansans, individual clerks would be empowered to refuse assistance to individuals that violated their religious beliefs on marriage.

If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

Nothing in the bill to limit or deny services to gay couples.

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


Until you seek a service that only has one available individual to perform the states role in.  At which point it is limiting services since now you have to wait for the non-bigot town clerk to be available to take care of your basic rights as a citizen.

This is hardly a compromise, the compromise is "Do your damned job as prescribed by law and provide services to citizens, stop trying to pretend you can artificially filter it based on your own personal biases".
 
2014-02-12 03:39:21 PM  
P - "I'd like to renew my registration and get a dog license please"

C- "Denied, against my religion, see another town clerk"

P - "But your the only town clerk we have had for years"

C- "Not my problem"
 
2014-02-12 03:39:26 PM  

cchris_39: Ah, so even though your services are not at all compromised you would force others to disregard their own religious beliefs.

Thanks for letting us know your true feelings on the matter.


No one is forcing the county clerk to get gay married. No religious beliefs are being compromised. Complaining that they're icky and you don't want to deal with them because you're unfamiliar with your own religious texts is dumb, but do your goddamn job. Save the complaints for facebook.
 
2014-02-12 03:41:41 PM  

busy chillin': Leishu: thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.

Not really, no. This is more the issue where Conservatives need to face the fact that, to any sane, thinking person, religion should not dictate civil rights and individual civil rights should ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS trump state rights.

And they think Obama is shredding the constitution. But you know, it is hard to read all the way to first amendment.


Your rights end at the tip of your nose. If the government provides services and you work for the government, get over it. It isn't a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.
 
2014-02-12 03:42:05 PM  

Serious Black: Tricky Chicken: Can we just tag and release all the people that live(ed) in Kansas please.  Just a tattoo on their forehead that says 'I chose to live in Kansas' or something like that.  That way if you ever see one speaking, you are forewarned.

I currently live in Lawrence and think this bill is abhorrent at best. Should I get stamped too?


No, we'd set up rigorous tests for intelligence, literacy, and Jesus-ness.  We might request that you sign our "I'm trying guys, really, but have you seen what I'm up against" documentation.  It comes with perks every time you vote.
 
2014-02-12 03:42:35 PM  

CrackpipeCardozo: Once this self-fulfilling prophesy gets shut down in federal court, the herpaderpers are going to have all the ammo they need to retain their incumbency.

/Kansan
//interviewed with Lance Kinzer, didn't get the job


At this point, the only way any of the Republicans in the state legislature will lose their positions is if somebody even more insane than them wins in the primary.
 
2014-02-12 03:43:04 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: I'm getting a job as a county clerk in Kansas.

My religion prohibits having contact with bigots and morons.

I'll be in once a month to pickup my check.


shiat, that's what direct deposit is for.
 
2014-02-12 03:43:21 PM  
dr_blasto:
Your rights end at the tip of your nose. If the government provides services and you work for the government, get over it. It isn't a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.

isn't this a law respecting Christianity?
 
2014-02-12 03:44:30 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: Serious Black: Tricky Chicken: Can we just tag and release all the people that live(ed) in Kansas please.  Just a tattoo on their forehead that says 'I chose to live in Kansas' or something like that.  That way if you ever see one speaking, you are forewarned.

I currently live in Lawrence and think this bill is abhorrent at best. Should I get stamped too?

No, we'd set up rigorous tests for intelligence, literacy, and Jesus-ness.  We might request that you sign our "I'm trying guys, really, but have you seen what I'm up against" documentation.  It comes with perks every time you vote.


Eh, I suppose that's an acceptable compromise.
 
2014-02-12 03:44:45 PM  

dr_blasto: No one is forcing the county clerk to get gay married. No religious beliefs are being compromised. Complaining that they're icky and you don't want to deal with them because you're unfamiliar with your own religious texts is dumb, but do your goddamn job. Save the complaints for facebook.


The floodgates were opened when people allowed loon bag pharmacists to pick and choose whether or not they wanted to dispense birth control. Nobody is making them take it. Nobody is making their family members take it. But they are interfering with the doctor-patient relationship based on something that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Every time an idiot is allowed to deny another person something -- anything -- because their religion says they, personally cannot or should not do something, we make that slope all the more slippery.

And honestly, if you can't do your job and serve whoever comes in, change your job. And if you want to run a business and pick and choose who comes in, maybe just stay at home because (a) you're an asshole and (b) you're an asshole.

The worst part of it is they all know none of this in any way violates anything to do with their religions. They just don't agree with something and are hiding behind lies about their religion. It's kind of sickening that any court allows any of it to go on, ever.
 
2014-02-12 03:46:03 PM  

cchris_39: Do you think people should be forced to set aside their religious beliefs when other people are willing to serve you?


What a person who is incapable of understanding that your rights end where my rights are violated looks like.

There's a lot people who have an entirely fictional understanding of their rights. We really, REALLY need to do a better job teaching it in school. The stupidity in this country is scary.
 
2014-02-12 03:47:50 PM  

NkThrasher: "Do your damned job as prescribed by law and provide services to citizens, stop trying to pretend you can artificially filter it based on your own personal biases".


Oh I would never refuse to serve anyone.  Can you imagine the fun and after work jokes I'd be missing out on?

You'd grow old at the end of the line trying to get your paperwork right (this time) or resubmitting something that somehow can't be found (again).  The irony is that YOU would be the one begging for someone else to help you.

But you would be greeted by my smiling face every time, ready to serve you with all the competence and enthusiasm you would expect from an irate government employee.
 
2014-02-12 03:48:02 PM  

plewis: meh.  wake me when the courts say that this shiat is ok.  Until then, it's one guy's talking point.


Sure, if by "one guy" you mean "the Kansas State House of Representatives".
 
2014-02-12 03:48:20 PM  

I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid


img.fark.net

Q&D.
 
2014-02-12 03:48:52 PM  

Johnny Swank: I wonder if the good citizens of Kansas realize how many millions of dollars they're pissing away passing laws like this that will, without a doubt, get tossed once it hits the court system.


I wish there was some sort of "Party Pays" law that said when a political party puts up a law that is supremely unconstitutional (voter Id, gun bans, anti-abortion, etc.), that party has to pay for ALL court costs.
 
2014-02-12 03:49:33 PM  
So what happens when a newly married woman goes to the dmv, shows her marriage license but her new husband's name is something like Lindsey, which is a gender-neutral name, the dmv person is going to deny the new license?

LULZ
 
2014-02-12 03:49:54 PM  

busy chillin': dr_blasto:
Your rights end at the tip of your nose. If the government provides services and you work for the government, get over it. It isn't a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.

isn't this a law respecting Christianity?


It doesn't mention Christianity. It is only assumed because Kansas=Jesus. As a representative of the government, you'd not be allowed to deny proper services to someone who is otherwise qualified to receive them because they're not like you in one form or another. That is discrimination and illegal. Your (generic your) right to your religious beliefs can't harm anyone else.
 
2014-02-12 03:50:21 PM  

cchris_39: But you would be greeted by my smiling face every time, ready to serve you with all the competence and enthusiasm you would expect from an irate government employee.


When all else fails, revert to 1980s stereotypes and avoid any germane questions that might otherwise cause you to look critically at your beliefs.
 
2014-02-12 03:52:29 PM  

suebhoney: So what happens when a newly married woman goes to the dmv, shows her marriage license but her new husband's name is something like Lindsey, which is a gender-neutral name, the dmv person is going to deny the new license?

LULZ


IT'S LINDSEY AND CHRIS, NOT LINDSAY AND KRIS!
 
2014-02-12 03:53:41 PM  

serpent_sky: And honestly, if you can't do your job and serve whoever comes in, change your job. And if you want to run a business and pick and choose who comes in, maybe just stay at home because (a) you're an asshole and (b) you're an asshole.


The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.
 
2014-02-12 03:54:35 PM  

cchris_39: Oh I would never refuse to serve anyone.


You can, you just can't do it when it comes to any of the protected classes. It's really not that hard to understand. All you have to do is say you're refusing them because they're a-holes, and that it has nothing to do with their <insert protected class here>.

Just make sure you aren't consistently doing it to <insert protected class here>, or at a minimum, that they have no way to statistically show you are. If not, you have nothing to complain about when you get sued.
 
2014-02-12 03:56:05 PM  

Serious Black: At this point, the only way any of the Republicans in the state legislature will lose their positions is if somebody even more insane than them wins in the primary.


I can see it now:

[HB 2543]  was designed to protect against religious persecution, but the ever-expanding federal government has ONCE AGAIN launched a salvo of god-hating fury in its non-stop persecution of religious minorities. [HB 2543] was passed by the elected majority of the Kansas legislature to protect the constitutional freedoms granted in the Constitution to protect religious freedom.
 
2014-02-12 03:58:03 PM  
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said.


I'll be damned if I'm going to allow people to discriminate against my rights to discriminate based on my religion!"

see also: What the f*ck is with Republicans that don't understand the 14th amendment? Didn't they attend their class on the Constitution? How is an obviously unconstitutional law in any way fiscally responsible?
 
2014-02-12 03:58:31 PM  

dr_blasto: The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.


But then they would turn around and sue you because you fired them because of their religious beliefs, not because they were pissing off your customers/causing you to lose business.  And you may or may not win.  It's dangerous territory for the unfortunate business owner saddled with someone refusing to do a routine part of his/her job based on imaginary religious beliefs.
 
2014-02-12 04:00:45 PM  

serpent_sky: dr_blasto: The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.

But then they would turn around and sue you because you fired them because of their religious beliefs, not because they were pissing off your customers/causing you to lose business.  And you may or may not win.  It's dangerous territory for the unfortunate business owner saddled with someone refusing to do a routine part of his/her job based on imaginary religious beliefs.


The pharmacist should also lose their license.
 
2014-02-12 04:01:45 PM  

dr_blasto: busy chillin': dr_blasto:
Your rights end at the tip of your nose. If the government provides services and you work for the government, get over it. It isn't a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.

isn't this a law respecting Christianity?

It doesn't mention Christianity. It is only assumed because Kansas=Jesus. As a representative of the government, you'd not be allowed to deny proper services to someone who is otherwise qualified to receive them because they're not like you in one form or another. That is discrimination and illegal. Your (generic your) right to your religious beliefs can't harm anyone else.


But it seems to state that public and private employees can discriminate based on their personal religious beliefs.

So they can deny services to people whom they find icky, which in turn, might harm them. Am I wrong? And if I am, then this whole thread seems pointless, now.
 
2014-02-12 04:03:23 PM  

propasaurus: inglixthemad: So, because I'm a Catholic and hate Protestants I'm cool to discriminate against them.

Good to know.

No, that's discrimination. However, because I'm Baptist, I'm now free to discriminate against those pagan idolater Catholics.


Really, I'm not allowed to discriminate against heretics? Piffle I say, piffle. The law shall protect my conscience. No service for you heathen. Oh, and no marriage license if you've been married before! (well, ok, if you are a widow or widower, it's cool) You want a business application filed? Forget it you godless heathen, I refuse to help you. You want a construction permit you divorced harlot? Never! My conscience won't abide helping you heathens.
 
2014-02-12 04:03:58 PM  

Lord_Baull: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said.


I'll be damned if I'm going to allow people to discriminate against my rights to discriminate based on my religion!"

see also: What the f*ck is with Republicans that don't understand the 14th amendment? Didn't they attend their class on the Constitution? How is an obviously unconstitutional law in any way fiscally responsible?


Their understanding of the constitution and what it means is fundamentally flawed. The whole thing escapes their grasp, see first amendment in particular.  "You can't fire him for what he said about the gay's!" "Why hasn't *insert name here* been fired for saying those nasty things about *conservative pundit or politician*"
 
2014-02-12 04:05:37 PM  
If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.
 
2014-02-12 04:06:42 PM  

inglixthemad: propasaurus: inglixthemad: So, because I'm a Catholic and hate Protestants I'm cool to discriminate against them.

Good to know.

No, that's discrimination. However, because I'm Baptist, I'm now free to discriminate against those pagan idolater Catholics.

Really, I'm not allowed to discriminate against heretics? Piffle I say, piffle. The law shall protect my conscience. No service for you heathen. Oh, and no marriage license if you've been married before! (well, ok, if you are a widow or widower, it's cool) You want a business application filed? Forget it you godless heathen, I refuse to help you. You want a construction permit you divorced harlot? Never! My conscience won't abide helping you heathens.


my personal and sincerely held religious beliefs hold that I shouldn't have to do business with assholes, charlatans or bigots.....so members of the Kansas State Legislature are going to have to go somewhere else.
 
2014-02-12 04:07:00 PM  

cchris_39: You'd grow old at the end of the line trying to get your paperwork right (this time) or resubmitting something that somehow can't be found (again). The irony is that YOU would be the one begging for someone else to help you.


The sad thing is that you're actually proud of that.
 
2014-02-12 04:07:10 PM  

nmrsnr: I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid

[img.fark.net image 472x391]

Q&D.


This is the highlight of my week.
 
2014-02-12 04:09:57 PM  

TV's Vinnie: If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.


I agree with this. I hope Jesus comes back. I think many people would have a really rude awakening.

For someone who seems to teach compassion and love, they sure have twisted his words around.

But I lost my religion years ago so maybe God really does want me to hate gay people. Could you imagine going to hell for being compassionate? Cool game you set up here, Big Guy.
 
2014-02-12 04:10:41 PM  

serpent_sky: dr_blasto: The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.

But then they would turn around and sue you because you fired them because of their religious beliefs, not because they were pissing off your customers/causing you to lose business.  And you may or may not win.  It's dangerous territory for the unfortunate business owner saddled with someone refusing to do a routine part of his/her job based on imaginary religious beliefs.


If an employee can discriminate against customers because of their religious beliefs, why can't an employer discriminate against employees because of their religious beliefs?
 
2014-02-12 04:11:50 PM  

serpent_sky: dr_blasto: The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.

But then they would turn around and sue you because you fired them because of their religious beliefs, not because they were pissing off your customers/causing you to lose business.  And you may or may not win.  It's dangerous territory for the unfortunate business owner saddled with someone refusing to do a routine part of his/her job based on imaginary religious beliefs.


And yet, if I refused to hire people who subscribed to ANY organized faith (to shortcut all of these moronic "I don't want to do my job!" arguments), *I'd* be the one facing an anti-discrimination suit.

That's libs for you.
 
2014-02-12 04:12:48 PM  

TerminalEchoes: sorry if that ruffles feathers


No you're not.
 
2014-02-12 04:13:39 PM  
How pathetic is it there are people here in favor of enabling bigotry among state and municipal workers and protecting them from any consequences of denying tax payer funded services to homosexuals?

...And calling it a "compromise"? Unreal.
 
2014-02-12 04:14:36 PM  
So if a KKK member believes that his Christian faith teaches that blacks are not equal to rights, will he be afforded the same "right" to deny service to black people based on his deeply held religious beliefs?

Will a fundamentalist Muslim business owner be able to deny services to women who are not covered in a burqa because they are violating his deeply held religious beliefs?
 
2014-02-12 04:15:48 PM  

keylock71: How pathetic is it there are people here in favor of enabling bigotry among state and municipal workers and protecting them from any consequences of denying tax payer funded services to homosexuals?

...And calling it a "compromise"? Unreal.


Maybe we could only allow 3 out of 5 gay couples to marry.

We could call it the 60% Compromise. I don't think that's ever been used before.
 
2014-02-12 04:16:31 PM  

busy chillin': TV's Vinnie: If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.

I agree with this. I hope Jesus comes back. I think many people would have a really rude awakening.

For someone who seems to teach compassion and love, they sure have twisted his words around.

But I lost my religion years ago so maybe God really does want me to hate gay people. Could you imagine going to hell for being compassionate? Cool game you set up here, Big Guy.


That's you in the corner...
 
2014-02-12 04:17:05 PM  

WorldCitizen: So if a KKK member believes that his Christian faith teaches that blacks are not equal to rights, will he be afforded the same "right" to deny service to black people based on his deeply held religious beliefs?

Will a fundamentalist Muslim business owner be able to deny services to women who are not covered in a burqa because they are violating his deeply held religious beliefs?


Yes to the first one (he's just a god-fearing man), no to the second one (he's a terrorist, and we won't tolerate terrorism!)
 
2014-02-12 04:18:15 PM  

busy chillin': dr_blasto: busy chillin': dr_blasto:
Your rights end at the tip of your nose. If the government provides services and you work for the government, get over it. It isn't a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.

isn't this a law respecting Christianity?

It doesn't mention Christianity. It is only assumed because Kansas=Jesus. As a representative of the government, you'd not be allowed to deny proper services to someone who is otherwise qualified to receive them because they're not like you in one form or another. That is discrimination and illegal. Your (generic your) right to your religious beliefs can't harm anyone else.

But it seems to state that public and private employees can discriminate based on their personal religious beliefs.

The law does say that 
So they can deny services to people whom they find icky, which in turn, might harm them. Am I wrong? No. The whole point of the law is to provide a method to allow public and private employees to discriminate against gays. I'm not sure how well it works out for private services, but it is illegal for government employees to do this.

And if I am, then this whole thread seems pointless, now.
It just doesn't necessarily mean it endorses any one religion, like Christianity, it allows any religion to be used as an excuse.

The thing is, forcing them (employees) to serve the people they find icky (the gays) doesn't materially impact their right to practice their religion. This law doesn't protect their first amendment rights, as they don't have first amendment rights to discriminate when performing government service.

How about an amendment that requires state legislatures to repeal, within 30 days, any laws found unconstitutional and a requirement that the governor cannot veto. Make the jackasses repeal their nasty bullshiat publicly.  
.
 
2014-02-12 04:18:49 PM  

jst3p: busy chillin': TV's Vinnie: If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.

I agree with this. I hope Jesus comes back. I think many people would have a really rude awakening.

For someone who seems to teach compassion and love, they sure have twisted his words around.

But I lost my religion years ago so maybe God really does want me to hate gay people. Could you imagine going to hell for being compassionate? Cool game you set up here, Big Guy.

That's you in the corner...


He's said too much

He hasn't said enough
 
2014-02-12 04:20:53 PM  

TV's Vinnie: If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.


I like you a lot.
 
2014-02-12 04:22:52 PM  

Dr Dreidel: serpent_sky: dr_blasto: The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.

But then they would turn around and sue you because you fired them because of their religious beliefs, not because they were pissing off your customers/causing you to lose business.  And you may or may not win.  It's dangerous territory for the unfortunate business owner saddled with someone refusing to do a routine part of his/her job based on imaginary religious beliefs.

And yet, if I refused to hire people who subscribed to ANY organized faith (to shortcut all of these moronic "I don't want to do my job!" arguments), *I'd* be the one facing an anti-discrimination suit.

That's libs for you.


Not really sure what you think you're saying here

Firstly, it's illegal to fire someone because of faith, or, in many states, sex, gender or sexuality. That doesn't mean it's illegal to fire them because they refuse to do a job, which happens to be because of their faith. Yes, there might be a lawsuit if any lawyer were willing to take the case, but I doubt that would happen, as that's actually usually something fairly easy to prove in a corporate environment, and is also why every small business owner who isn't a blithering idiot  keeps records.

I find it somewhat amusing that you tie this to "libs" (I guess "at will" employment only applies if the person isn't being fired for reasons they don't like) but I will withhold comment until I can tell if you're just being a bit silly, as I am not familiar with your modus operandi.
 
2014-02-12 04:23:01 PM  

scottydoesntknow: jst3p: busy chillin': TV's Vinnie: If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.

I agree with this. I hope Jesus comes back. I think many people would have a really rude awakening.

For someone who seems to teach compassion and love, they sure have twisted his words around.

But I lost my religion years ago so maybe God really does want me to hate gay people. Could you imagine going to hell for being compassionate? Cool game you set up here, Big Guy.

That's you in the corner...

He's said too much

He hasn't said enough


*rapid eye movements*
 
2014-02-12 04:23:34 PM  

Serious Black: serpent_sky: dr_blasto: The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.

But then they would turn around and sue you because you fired them because of their religious beliefs, not because they were pissing off your customers/causing you to lose business.  And you may or may not win.  It's dangerous territory for the unfortunate business owner saddled with someone refusing to do a routine part of his/her job based on imaginary religious beliefs.

If an employee can discriminate against customers because of their religious beliefs, why can't an employer discriminate against employees because of their religious beliefs?


Religion is protect in employment law. For example, you cannot safely ask what religion a potential candidate is. You cannot fire them once you find out they go to that nutty snake-handling church even if your insurance company dumps you. You also have to make "reasonable accommodations" for their religious needs.

However, if they cannot perform the tasks assigned in their job (like distributing the evil slut pills), you can fire them or find that reassignment is a reasonable-enough accommodation. If that reassignment is cleaning the condom machines, then that's up to the employer to argue.

Also note that, in some states, reassignment may allow for a lower salary commensurate with the position and in almost no state does shift work qualify as unreasonable. You can move the crazy pill-handler to shorter hours, mid shift, whatever.
 
2014-02-12 04:23:50 PM  

WorldCitizen: So if a KKK member believes that his Christian faith teaches that blacks are not equal to rights, will he be afforded the same "right" to deny service to black people based on his deeply held religious beliefs?


IIRC this law specifies discrimination on the basis of sex/gender, so only if the black person is gay and/or a woman.

WorldCitizen: Will a fundamentalist Muslim business owner be able to deny services to women who are not covered in a burqa because they are violating his deeply held religious beliefs?


Under this law, yes. As usual, the GOP has not thought their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2014-02-12 04:25:18 PM  

cchris_39: Oh I would never refuse to serve anyone.  Can you imagine the fun and after work jokes I'd be missing out on?

You'd grow old at the end of the line trying to get your paperwork right (this time) or resubmitting something that somehow can't be found (again).  The irony is that YOU would be the one begging for someone else to help you.

But you would be greeted by my smiling face every time, ready to serve you with all the competence and enthusiasm you would expect from an irate government employee.


Not surprised you don't even have the stones to man up to your bigotry and would hide behind some passive-aggressive behaviour.  It must really suck to be you and look at that face in the mirror every day.  It's almost enough for me to pity you.
 
2014-02-12 04:26:02 PM  
dr_blasto:

so that is how this could work legally? The fact that it doesn't state one religion, it covers all of them?

Evil genius comes to mind.

We are truly going backwards...
 
2014-02-12 04:26:51 PM  
I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of
, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.


It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.
 
2014-02-12 04:30:08 PM  

scottydoesntknow: keylock71: How pathetic is it there are people here in favor of enabling bigotry among state and municipal workers and protecting them from any consequences of denying tax payer funded services to homosexuals?

...And calling it a "compromise"? Unreal.

Maybe we could only allow 3 out of 5 gay couples to marry.

We could call it the 60% Compromise. I don't think that's ever been used before.


Heh... Maybe they could have separate but "equal" services for straights and dirty, godless homos. : )
 
2014-02-12 04:30:28 PM  

Leishu: Dr Dreidel: serpent_sky: dr_blasto: The pharmacist thing was atrocious. That's a licensed profession, you'd expect the person performing the job to be a professional. If I owned a pharmacy, I'd fire his ass post haste. Well, I'd offer to demote to stocking shelves for the OTC stuff.

Now that I think of it, BC should be on the shelves anyhow.

But then they would turn around and sue you because you fired them because of their religious beliefs, not because they were pissing off your customers/causing you to lose business.  And you may or may not win.  It's dangerous territory for the unfortunate business owner saddled with someone refusing to do a routine part of his/her job based on imaginary religious beliefs.

And yet, if I refused to hire people who subscribed to ANY organized faith (to shortcut all of these moronic "I don't want to do my job!" arguments), *I'd* be the one facing an anti-discrimination suit.

That's libs for you.

Not really sure what you think you're saying here

Firstly, it's illegal to fire someone because of faith, or, in many states, sex, gender or sexuality. That doesn't mean it's illegal to fire them because they refuse to do a job, which happens to be because of their faith. Yes, there might be a lawsuit if any lawyer were willing to take the case, but I doubt that would happen, as that's actually usually something fairly easy to prove in a corporate environment, and is also why every small business owner who isn't a blithering idiot  keeps records.

I find it somewhat amusing that you tie this to "libs" (I guess "at will" employment only applies if the person isn't being fired for reasons they don't like) but I will withhold comment until I can tell if you're just being a bit silly, as I am not familiar with your modus operandi.


It would be easy to avoid a wrongful termination suit with simple record keeping and listing job requirements properly, even for professional employees. Pharmacists are licensed, but if your pharmacist decided not to dispense the pill because he's a crazy f*cker, simply formally indicating that they must dispense all medicines in stock in accordance with prescriptions (with whatever disclaimer regarding appropriate medical needs) or risk termination would immediately solve that shiat.

Also, Dr Dreidel is making a wisecrack.
 
2014-02-12 04:31:16 PM  

Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.


Except for two things:

1) Kansas is mostly extremely rural, meaning these couples often have only one option. If the local grocer refuses to serve the local gay couple, then it represents an arbitrarily higher cost of living simply because that couple is gay. If it's the local hospital, it could mean illness or death if the doctor is a bigot. Things like that are what anti-discrimination laws were designed to prevent.

2) This includes government employees, meaning the people at the nearest DMV, who may very well be the only person on-staff, can refuse to serve them, meaning the people at the county clerk can refuse them a business license. Things like that are what anti-discrimination laws were designed to prevent.

So, in other words, you fail at reading.
 
2014-02-12 04:33:25 PM  

Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits
, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement;
or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.


It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.


Highlighting that one part doesn't negate all the other parts you didn't highlight. I highlighted those for you. You're welcome
 
2014-02-12 04:33:25 PM  

Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.


It also covers public employees, not just private businesses like the cake people. Public employees provide essential services and could impact state action regarding everything from taxes to domestic violence services, foster care and any number of child services.
 
2014-02-12 04:33:43 PM  
dr_blasto: Also, Dr Dreidel is making a wisecrack.

Okay. That makes sense. Sarcasm meter etc. etc. :)
 
2014-02-12 04:33:45 PM  
Mr. Macheers, you have stained your own honor with your asshattish behavior. Fark off and die.
 
2014-02-12 04:34:44 PM  

busy chillin': dr_blasto:

so that is how this could work legally? The fact that it doesn't state one religion, it covers all of them?

Evil genius comes to mind.

We are truly going backwards...


no, the law is illegal. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and since this is very obviously based on Evangelical Christianity it probably violates the Kansas State Constitution as well. There's a very good chance it won't pass the Senate.
 
2014-02-12 04:34:56 PM  

Eskaminagaga: This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way.


Difficulty: if you are a public employee or are offering services available to the public, it's unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics.
 
2014-02-12 04:35:50 PM  
Leishu:
Except for two things:

1) Kansas is mostly extremely rural, meaning these couples often have only one option. If the local grocer refuses to serve the local gay couple, then it represents an arbitrarily higher cost of living simply because that couple is gay. If it's the local hospital, it could mean illness or death if the doctor is a bigot. Things like that are what anti-discrimination laws were designed to prevent.

2) This includes government employees, meaning the people at the nearest DMV, who may very well be the only person on-staff, can refuse to serve them, meaning the people at the county clerk can refuse them a business license. Things like that are what anti-discrimination laws were designed to prevent.

So, in other words, you fail at reading.


Those issues have nothing to do with the same-sex marriage, thus the refusal of service wouldnt be permitted.
 
2014-02-12 04:39:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.

Highlighting that one part doesn't negate all the other parts you didn't highlight. I highlighted those for you. You're welcome


Gay marriage has not been passed in Kansas, so they couldnt get married there in the first place. The only issue I can see is if people filing taxes uses a religious tax agency that would refuse to file anything jointly.
 
2014-02-12 04:40:13 PM  

Leishu: I will withhold comment until I can tell if you're just being a bit silly, as I am not familiar with your modus operandi.


Sometimes I like to make a point by arguing an absurd position. That was a (half-)sarcastic remark aimed at religious people - who, I should point out, used to count me as a member.

OP posted a well-known scenario - a religious pharmacist who refuses to dispense prescribed medication - and implied that it could spawn a messy court case over whether the pharmacist was fired for religious reasons (because they believe BC is wrong) or commercial (because they wouldn't do the job they were hired to do).

My sarcasm was in offering a "solution" to the problem - i.e., refusing to hire anyone who professes any recognizable ("organized" is the word I used) faith. Can't be a dick about your religion if'n you ain't got no religion anyhow.

And yes, it'd be illegal; though "the libs" that made it so in this case are whatever communist anti-American farkhead ninny pantywaist European-sounding tyrants that adopted the First Amendment.

// some of that last sentence was snark as well
 
2014-02-12 04:41:55 PM  
Gay marriage has not been passed in Kansas, so they couldnt get married there in the first place. The only issue I can see is if people  who married out of state, but live in Kansas filing taxes uses a religious tax agency that would refuse to file anything jointly.

Hit submit too fast
 
2014-02-12 04:43:08 PM  

Voiceofreason01: busy chillin': dr_blasto:

so that is how this could work legally? The fact that it doesn't state one religion, it covers all of them?

Evil genius comes to mind.

We are truly going backwards...

no, the law is illegal. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and since this is very obviously based on Evangelical Christianity it probably violates the Kansas State Constitution as well. There's a very good chance it won't pass the Senate.


LOL. Since when has a law potentially violating the US Constitution, federal law, or the Kansas state Constitution ever stopped the legislature from passing laws that exclusively benefit bigots?
 
2014-02-12 04:43:37 PM  

Theaetetus: cchris_39: If an individual employee objects on religious grounds, they will be assigned to employee who does not object and still get same services rendered to other Kansans.  That's all it says.

What if all employees in that office object?


It's a compromise, get it?
 
2014-02-12 04:46:43 PM  
Voiceofreason01:

no, the law is illegal. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and since this is very obviously based on Evangelical Christianity it probably violates the Kansas State Constitution as well. There's a very good chance it won't pass the Senate.

Just googled Kansas State Constitution:

7. Religious liberty.The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend or support any form of worship; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, nor any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. No religious test or property qualification shall be required for any office of public trust, nor for any vote at any elections, nor shall any person be incompetent to testify on account of religious belief.

Isn't that what this does*? How did it even get this far?  Wait, don't answer that.

*Not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination
 
2014-02-12 04:46:57 PM  

Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.


It's a preemptive strike.  Kansas is in the same federal appeals district that just shot down Oklahoma's and Utah's same-sex marriage bans, so they know it's only a matter of time before somebody sues to take down theirs as well.  They're trying to get as many of these types of laws passed as possible to increase the number of hurdles that people and the courts will have to clear before same-sex marriage becomes de facto available in the state.  The whole religious angle is just a smoke screen because their real goal is to make it more difficult for same-sex couples to be legally married in the state.
 
2014-02-12 04:48:49 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Those issues have nothing to do with the same-sex marriage, thus the refusal of service wouldnt be permitted.


You are incorrect, and your narrow-mindedness is showing. The law is written in a broad enough fashion that every single situation I described can apply based on interpretation, and if you think that they won't take the widest stance possible, you're even more of an idiot than you originally portrayed yourself as.
 
2014-02-12 04:52:03 PM  

Witty_Retort: Johnny Swank: I wonder if the good citizens of Kansas realize how many millions of dollars they're pissing away passing laws like this that will, without a doubt, get tossed once it hits the court system.

I wish there was some sort of "Party Pays" law that said when a political party puts up a law that is supremely unconstitutional (voter Id, gun bans, anti-abortion, etc.), that party has to pay for ALL court costs.


Not the party, the politicians who voted for it.
 
2014-02-12 04:53:07 PM  

Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender
:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement
;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.


Hypothetically, does this mean someone could discriminate against heterosexual marriages by claiming that their religion permits said discrimination?
 
2014-02-12 04:56:51 PM  

Leishu: Eskaminagaga: Those issues have nothing to do with the same-sex marriage, thus the refusal of service wouldnt be permitted.

You are incorrect, and your narrow-mindedness is showing. The law is written in a broad enough fashion that every single situation I described can apply based on interpretation, and if you think that they won't take the widest stance possible, you're even more of an idiot than you originally portrayed yourself as.


I will try to ignore the fact that you feel the need to resort to personal insults vice just stating facts, but per the bill, if it is not "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement", actually conducting the marriage itself, or assuming the marriage is valid (which should not matter 99% of the time), then it would not be legal.
 
2014-02-12 04:58:07 PM  

Leishu: widest stance possible


Which is, oddly, a very Republican thing to do.
 
2014-02-12 04:58:57 PM  

fiddlehead: Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.

Hypothetically, does this mean someone could discriminate against heterosexual marriages by claiming that their religion permits said discrimination?


Per the wording in the bill, yes. It would be hard to find a religion that does, though.
 
2014-02-12 05:03:48 PM  
And I'm still not including government roles, which even further solidify your current activity of asinine rambling as such, yet.
 
2014-02-12 05:04:57 PM  

Eskaminagaga: fiddlehead: Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.

Hypothetically, does this mean someone could discriminate against heterosexual marriages by claiming that their religion permits said discrimination?

Per the wording in the bill, yes. It would be hard to find a religion that does, though.


Can I invent a new religion that says heterosexual marriages are immoral?
 
2014-02-12 05:05:50 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Per the wording in the bill, yes. It would be hard to find a religion that does, though.


Oh, I'm sure one could be invented...
 
2014-02-12 05:07:08 PM  

Eskaminagaga: fiddlehead: Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.

Hypothetically, does this mean someone could discriminate against heterosexual marriages by claiming that their religion permits said discrimination?

Per the wording in the bill, yes. It would be hard to find a religion that does, though.


I think it's important to note that this bolded part amounts to the state determining what beliefs are and are not held by each religion.
 
2014-02-12 05:08:13 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Leishu: Eskaminagaga: Those issues have nothing to do with the same-sex marriage, thus the refusal of service wouldnt be permitted.

You are incorrect, and your narrow-mindedness is showing. The law is written in a broad enough fashion that every single situation I described can apply based on interpretation, and if you think that they won't take the widest stance possible, you're even more of an idiot than you originally portrayed yourself as.

I will try to ignore the fact that you feel the need to resort to personal insults vice just stating facts, but per the bill, if it is not "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement", actually conducting the marriage itself, or assuming the marriage is valid (which should not matter 99% of the time), then it would not be legal.


Even sticking to your narrow interpretation, it doesn't say any same-sex marriage, it says ANY marriage. A Christian could justify refusing to process an atheist woman's application to change her last name on her drivers license by saying that her civil ceremony went against his belief that marriage is/must be ordained by God. Are you ok with that?
 
2014-02-12 05:10:23 PM  

Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.


The fact that you say "celebrate or aid their marriage" is telling. Tell me, how is having the people do the same job for everyone in exactly the same way "celebrating" or "aiding" any type of marriage? Are straight marriages "celebrated" or "aided" at the DMV when a drivers license is issued to a man who's married to a woman? I mean, seriously? Is this what you folks have resorted to? Face it: Unequal treatment is wrong - full stop.
 
2014-02-12 05:11:52 PM  

eagles95: So when is Brownback going to start putting out feelers he wants to be President in 16. He's doing a great job with this, no taxes on business, abortion. Plus living in a fly over state, he can say stupid crap and not worry about it. Kind of like Walker except without the permanent DERP look


brownbackistan.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-12 05:14:08 PM  

apoptotic: Eskaminagaga: Leishu: Eskaminagaga: Those issues have nothing to do with the same-sex marriage, thus the refusal of service wouldnt be permitted.

You are incorrect, and your narrow-mindedness is showing. The law is written in a broad enough fashion that every single situation I described can apply based on interpretation, and if you think that they won't take the widest stance possible, you're even more of an idiot than you originally portrayed yourself as.

I will try to ignore the fact that you feel the need to resort to personal insults vice just stating facts, but per the bill, if it is not "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement", actually conducting the marriage itself, or assuming the marriage is valid (which should not matter 99% of the time), then it would not be legal.

Even sticking to your narrow interpretation, it doesn't say any same-sex marriage, it says ANY marriage. A Christian could justify refusing to process an atheist woman's application to change her last name on her drivers license by saying that her civil ceremony went against his belief that marriage is/must be ordained by God. Are you ok with that?


The first part of the bill states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:


It does not state anything about being ordaned or not. It also avoids dealing with interracial marriages this way as some religious groups are opposed to.
 
2014-02-12 05:14:43 PM  

kidgenius: keylock71: I'm sure there are several flights a day leaving Kansas heading towards another country.

Actually, I don't think there are. The only International airport is in Kansas City....Missouri.


There are plenty of flights from Kansas to Texas.

\as close to a foreign country as I want to see
 
2014-02-12 05:18:06 PM  
Jesus christ you Christians are farking nuts. Every damn one of you. Get some damn mental help.
 
2014-02-12 05:18:41 PM  
Also, I have a feeling that the proponents of this bill would be outraged at a Muslim grocery store owner or cashier refusing to sell them alcohol or pork. Religious freedom for me but not for thee!
 
2014-02-12 05:21:43 PM  

rugman11: It's a preemptive strike.  Kansas is in the same federal appeals district that just shot down Oklahoma's and Utah's same-sex marriage bans, so they know it's only a matter of time before somebody sues to take down theirs as well.  They're trying to get as many of these types of laws passed as possible to increase the number of hurdles that people and the courts will have to clear before same-sex marriage becomes de facto available in the state.  The whole religious angle is just a smoke screen because their real goal is to make it more difficult for same-sex couples to be legally married in the state.


This is correct. There's no question that the law is illegal, the whole point is to force someone to have to sue to get it overturned.
 
2014-02-12 05:23:14 PM  
Eskaminagaga:I will try to ignore the fact that you feel the need to resort to personal insults vice just stating facts, but per the bill, if it is not "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement", actually conducting the marriage itself, or assuming the marriage is valid (which should not matter 99% of the time), then it would not be legal.

I've bolded the reason why you're wrong, which can include the following, for example:

1) I don't like that this couple got married! I'm going to refuse to sell them food for their wedding! (Grocer)


2) I don't like that this couple bought a house to celebrate their marriage! I'm going to refuse to process their request for a name change! (DMV, example used in recent post)

3) I don't like this married couple! I'm going to refuse them medical visitation! I'm also going to refuse their right to attorney and not listen to the spouse telling me about the patient's medical limitations! (Hell, pick a treatment. Doctor)

 I fully expect you to not pay attention to it (again), as you've failed to read it several times now. I am sitting here not holding my breath for you to continue to fail to read things and to instead supplant statements that make up facts that help you to pretend that this law is anything other than what it is: Bigotry.
 
2014-02-12 05:25:14 PM  

Johnny Swank: Jesus christ you Christians are farking nuts. Every damn one of you. Get some damn mental help.


Unless their employer is a Scientologist, then good luck getting those psychiatry visits covered on your employee health insurance!
 
2014-02-12 05:33:10 PM  
All religious expression should be between you and whatever god/thing you believe in.
We need to cut out the middlemen, they are the ones that mess things up.
 
2014-02-12 05:33:55 PM  

Leishu: Eskaminagaga:I will try to ignore the fact that you feel the need to resort to personal insults vice just stating facts, but per the bill, if it is not "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement", actually conducting the marriage itself, or assuming the marriage is valid (which should not matter 99% of the time), then it would not be legal.

I've bolded the reason why you're wrong, which can include the following, for example:

1) I don't like that this couple got married! I'm going to refuse to sell them food for their wedding! (Grocer)

2) I don't like that this couple bought a house to celebrate their marriage! I'm going to refuse to process their request for a name change! (DMV, example used in recent post)

3) I don't like this married couple! I'm going to refuse them medical visitation! I'm also going to refuse their right to attorney and not listen to the spouse telling me about the patient's medical limitations! (Hell, pick a treatment. Doctor)

 I fully expect you to not pay attention to it (again), as you've failed to read it several times now. I am sitting here not holding my breath for you to continue to fail to read things and to instead supplant statements that make up facts that help you to pretend that this law is anything other than what it is: Bigotry.


The bill states:
 If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other nonreligiousentity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, andamendments there to, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful servicethat is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, theindividual's employer, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can bedone without undue hardship to the employer.

Keeping that in mind:
1) This could happen, but the grocer would likely not know what the food was for. If it is a religious grocer, they could just go to another grocer in that case, otherwise, the owner should provide someone else that has no issue with their marriage if possible.
2) The state must provide another person who does not take objection to their marriage in this case.
3) This could also happen, though i doubt the doctor would ignore anyone, spouse or not, telling about medical limitations. The hospital would likely assign a non-religious doctor to them if it became a problem.
 
2014-02-12 05:38:36 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Leishu: Eskaminagaga:I will try to ignore the fact that you feel the need to resort to personal insults vice just stating facts, but per the bill, if it is not "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement", actually conducting the marriage itself, or assuming the marriage is valid (which should not matter 99% of the time), then it would not be legal.

I've bolded the reason why you're wrong, which can include the following, for example:

1) I don't like that this couple got married! I'm going to refuse to sell them food for their wedding! (Grocer)

2) I don't like that this couple bought a house to celebrate their marriage! I'm going to refuse to process their request for a name change! (DMV, example used in recent post)

3) I don't like this married couple! I'm going to refuse them medical visitation! I'm also going to refuse their right to attorney and not listen to the spouse telling me about the patient's medical limitations! (Hell, pick a treatment. Doctor)

 I fully expect you to not pay attention to it (again), as you've failed to read it several times now. I am sitting here not holding my breath for you to continue to fail to read things and to instead supplant statements that make up facts that help you to pretend that this law is anything other than what it is: Bigotry.

The bill states:
 If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other nonreligiousentity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, andamendments there to, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful servicethat is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, theindividual's employer, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can bedone without undue hardship to the employer.


What makes you think that people in such professions in rural areas can easily provide a replacement employee to provide the service at short notice without undue hardship? Once again, I have bolded the part that has invalidated your entire attempt justification of this bigotry.
 
2014-02-12 05:43:10 PM  
And, of course, the implication of all of this is that hardship to the people who this law is allowing discrimination against is  irrelevant in comparison to having people hired to do a job, you know, NOT HAVE TO DO THAT JOBbecause they believe it is their right to control the lives of others due to their religion.
 
2014-02-12 05:45:24 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Leishu: Eskaminagaga:I will try to ignore the fact that you feel the need to resort to personal insults vice just stating facts, but per the bill, if it is not "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement", actually conducting the marriage itself, or assuming the marriage is valid (which should not matter 99% of the time), then it would not be legal.

I've bolded the reason why you're wrong, which can include the following, for example:

1) I don't like that this couple got married! I'm going to refuse to sell them food for their wedding! (Grocer)

2) I don't like that this couple bought a house to celebrate their marriage! I'm going to refuse to process their request for a name change! (DMV, example used in recent post)

3) I don't like this married couple! I'm going to refuse them medical visitation! I'm also going to refuse their right to attorney and not listen to the spouse telling me about the patient's medical limitations! (Hell, pick a treatment. Doctor)

 I fully expect you to not pay attention to it (again), as you've failed to read it several times now. I am sitting here not holding my breath for you to continue to fail to read things and to instead supplant statements that make up facts that help you to pretend that this law is anything other than what it is: Bigotry.

The bill states:
 If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other nonreligiousentity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, andamendments there to, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful servicethat is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, theindividual's employer, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can bedone without undue hardship to the employer.

Keeping that in mind:
1) This could happen, but the grocer woul ...


Difficulty: define "promptly" and "undue hardship". For example, if a small business has no one willing or able to provide the service, would having to hire or contract another person in order to "provide another employee to provide such service" constitute undue hardship? If the business has multiple locations across the state and another employee capable of performing the service is hundreds of miles away and isn't available until next week, does that still qualify as "promptly", and if so, would the expense of bringing them in from out of town constitute undue hardship?
 
2014-02-12 05:52:18 PM  
Can we nuke Kansas from orbit already?
 
2014-02-12 05:54:54 PM  
Leishu: What makes you think that people in such professions in rural areas can easily provide a replacement employee to provide the service at short notice without undue hardship? Once again, I have bolded the part that has invalidated your entire attempt justification of this bigotry.

"Undue hardship" would be the sticking point for many in these cases. That would be what is up to interpretation. If a non-religious employer had only a single religious employee running his store at the time and the employee refused to help the couple celebrate their wedding reception, it would be up to him to determine if it is worth facing a potential lawsuit to his buisness for not driving out there and helping them personally. In the case of a religious buisness, they could just outright refuse service if they know it was related to the couple's wedding.

The county, state, and any other public service would be a "Governmental Entity" and the bill states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by
an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in
section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in:
(...)
(2) an action by any governmental entity to penalize, withhold
benefits from, discriminate against or otherwise disadvantage any
protected individual or religious entity, under any state or local law.


So, any public service to the couple will be given, even if the government has to send someone from across the state to do it.
 
2014-02-12 05:56:13 PM  

scottydoesntknow: They look stupid now.

40 years from now their kids and grandkids will also think they look stupid.


Rann Xerox: Nope.  They look pretty stupid right now.


Leishu: In fairness, I'm pretty sure they'll still look stupid, only moreso, in 40 years. :)


Voiceofreason01: they look stupid now.


4.bp.blogspot.com

lelz

i guess them religious people think that everyone else should just sit in the back of the bus, and be sold as slaves

we should create special processing centers for religious people, preferably near some train tracks ;-)

/tasteslikehate.jpg

maybe someday adults who believe in angels can grow up and learn about science!
 
2014-02-12 05:58:04 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Leishu: What makes you think that people in such professions in rural areas can easily provide a replacement employee to provide the service at short notice without undue hardship? Once again, I have bolded the part that has invalidated your entire attempt justification of this bigotry.

"Undue hardship" would be the sticking point for many in these cases. That would be what is up to interpretation. If a non-religious employer had only a single religious employee running his store at the time and the employee refused to help the couple celebrate their wedding reception, it would be up to him to determine if it is worth facing a potential lawsuit to his buisness for not driving out there and helping them personally. In the case of a religious buisness, they could just outright refuse service if they know it was related to the couple's wedding.


It has already been explained to you why this is problematic. I don't feel a particular need to repeat myself when you failed to read it the first time, or the times when several other users pointed out the same  thing to you. Your willful ignorance is your own problem.

The county, state, and any other public service would be a "Governmental Entity" and the bill states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by
an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in
section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in:
(...)
(2) an action by any governmental entity to penalize, withhold
benefits from, discriminate against or otherwise disadvantage any
protected individual or religious entity, under any state or local law.

So, any public service to the couple will be given, even if the government has to send someone from across the state to do it.


Government employees =/= Government entity.

And you, again, are glossing over the fact that some of these are time-sensitive situations.
 
2014-02-12 06:09:22 PM  

sjmcc13: Witty_Retort: Johnny Swank: I wonder if the good citizens of Kansas realize how many millions of dollars they're pissing away passing laws like this that will, without a doubt, get tossed once it hits the court system.

I wish there was some sort of "Party Pays" law that said when a political party puts up a law that is supremely unconstitutional (voter Id, gun bans, anti-abortion, etc.), that party has to pay for ALL court costs.

Not the party, the politicians who voted for it.


Nope, the whole party. All of the wedge issues, I would fine the entire party, local, state, and national, to pay out the court costs of blatantly unconstitutional laws.
Might make them actually consider constitutional challenges instead of BS laws that just happen to crop up on off year elections.
 
2014-02-12 06:10:18 PM  

Leishu: Eskaminagaga: Leishu: What makes you think that people in such professions in rural areas can easily provide a replacement employee to provide the service at short notice without undue hardship? Once again, I have bolded the part that has invalidated your entire attempt justification of this bigotry.

"Undue hardship" would be the sticking point for many in these cases. That would be what is up to interpretation. If a non-religious employer had only a single religious employee running his store at the time and the employee refused to help the couple celebrate their wedding reception, it would be up to him to determine if it is worth facing a potential lawsuit to his buisness for not driving out there and helping them personally. In the case of a religious buisness, they could just outright refuse service if they know it was related to the couple's wedding.

It has already been explained to you why this is problematic. I don't feel a particular need to repeat myself when you failed to read it the first time, or the times when several other users pointed out the same  thing to you. Your willful ignorance is your own problem.


It is really no different than the potential lawsuit that they may face if they refused without the bill in place. It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong. It would be similar as if you lived in the middle east and was told to help celebrate the wedding and de-virginization of a 6 year old girl by a 30 year old man. I am sure you would refuse to help that couple. To religious people, homosexual marriage is not much better.

Leishu: Government employees =/= Government entity.

And you, again, are glossing over the fact that some of these are time-sensitive situations.


True, and the employee under this bill would have the right to refuse in the case of marriage-related services. In that case the state must send someone who would not refuse from elsewhere. It may suck for the couple in the cases where something is time sensitive. If it is not marriage related, though, it must be handled like anyone else.
 
2014-02-12 06:17:26 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Leishu: Eskaminagaga: Leishu: What makes you think that people in such professions in rural areas can easily provide a replacement employee to provide the service at short notice without undue hardship? Once again, I have bolded the part that has invalidated your entire attempt justification of this bigotry.

"Undue hardship" would be the sticking point for many in these cases. That would be what is up to interpretation. If a non-religious employer had only a single religious employee running his store at the time and the employee refused to help the couple celebrate their wedding reception, it would be up to him to determine if it is worth facing a potential lawsuit to his buisness for not driving out there and helping them personally. In the case of a religious buisness, they could just outright refuse service if they know it was related to the couple's wedding.

It has already been explained to you why this is problematic. I don't feel a particular need to repeat myself when you failed to read it the first time, or the times when several other users pointed out the same  thing to you. Your willful ignorance is your own problem.

It is really no different than the potential lawsuit that they may face if they refused without the bill in place. It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong. It would be similar as if you lived in the middle east and was told to help celebrate the wedding and de-virginization of a 6 year old girl by a 30 year old man. I am sure you would refuse to help that couple. To religious people, homosexual marriage is not much better.

Leishu: Government employees =/= Government entity.

And you, again, are glossing over the fact that some of these are time-sensitive situations.

True, and the employee under this bill would have the right to refuse in the case of marriage-related services. In that case the state must send ...


And this is where you are. Once again, you find the law allowing these bigots to  interfere with the lives, livelihoods, well-being, and right to live of others to be a lesser evil than equality, and that is why you are a bigot.

Because, once again:

I run the only grocer in town. I'm going to refuse to sell these people food on their wedding day.

I run the only gas station within 75 miles and I'm the only staffmember. I'm going to refuse gasoline to the wedding limo, despite that there are no other vehicles in the party.

I run the only hotel in town. I'm going to refuse to allow this couple a suite on their honeymoon.

I'm the only doctor in town. I'm going to refuse this person's spouse power of attorney and refuse to consult them on their allergies and sensitivities and medical history.

I'm the only coroner in town. I'm going to refuse to respect this gay couple's last wishes.

Bigots, them, and you for defending them.
 
2014-02-12 06:21:55 PM  

Eskaminagaga: It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong.


So am I allowed to legally discriminate against religious people because I find their practices morally wrong?
 
2014-02-12 06:23:04 PM  

Leishu: Eskaminagaga: Leishu: Eskaminagaga: Leishu: What makes you think that people in such professions in rural areas can easily provide a replacement employee to provide the service at short notice without undue hardship? Once again, I have bolded the part that has invalidated your entire attempt justification of this bigotry.

"Undue hardship" would be the sticking point for many in these cases. That would be what is up to interpretation. If a non-religious employer had only a single religious employee running his store at the time and the employee refused to help the couple celebrate their wedding reception, it would be up to him to determine if it is worth facing a potential lawsuit to his buisness for not driving out there and helping them personally. In the case of a religious buisness, they could just outright refuse service if they know it was related to the couple's wedding.

It has already been explained to you why this is problematic. I don't feel a particular need to repeat myself when you failed to read it the first time, or the times when several other users pointed out the same  thing to you. Your willful ignorance is your own problem.

It is really no different than the potential lawsuit that they may face if they refused without the bill in place. It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong. It would be similar as if you lived in the middle east and was told to help celebrate the wedding and de-virginization of a 6 year old girl by a 30 year old man. I am sure you would refuse to help that couple. To religious people, homosexual marriage is not much better.

Leishu: Government employees =/= Government entity.

And you, again, are glossing over the fact that some of these are time-sensitive situations.

True, and the employee under this bill would have the right to refuse in the case of marriage-related services. In that case the s ...


And in those extreme cases, they would have the right to do so under the bill. Hopefully the couple knowing about this bill would have the foresight to either not tell the person that they are celebrating their wedding, or make other arrangements.

If the bill ever passes the senate, i don't think you would find many cases of this happening, though.
 
2014-02-12 06:23:57 PM  

Fart_Machine: Eskaminagaga: It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong.

So am I allowed to legally discriminate against religious people because I find their practices morally wrong?


Nope. According to this law, only the gays can be discriminated against, out of all protected classes.

The irony is that the law may be what causes sexuality and gender to become federally protected classes, as the courts may make them so in response to this bigoted filth.
 
2014-02-12 06:24:01 PM  

Fart_Machine: Eskaminagaga: It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong.

So am I allowed to legally discriminate against religious people because I find their practices morally wrong?


Only if there is a law in effect saying that you can.
 
2014-02-12 06:28:23 PM  

Eskaminagaga: And in those extreme cases, they would have the right to do so under the bill. Hopefully the couple knowing about this bill would have the foresight to either not tell the person that they are celebrating their wedding, or make other arrangements.

If the bill ever passes the senate, i don't think you would find many cases of this happening, though.


What makes you think those cases would be any less common than the requests for service? For that matter, what makes you think a lawyer would be conveniently located who would not refuse to take the case?

I feel there is little doubt that this will pass the Kansas senate. But, then, I feel there is little doubt that this will be challenged all the way up to Federal Court the first time it is possible, and overturned, as the courts don't tend to look fondly on things that remove equal protection from targeted groups.
 
2014-02-12 06:37:17 PM  
Republicans: "Our hatred is justified and patriotic!"
 
2014-02-12 06:43:01 PM  

Truffle Kerfuffle: Republicans: "Our hatred is justified and patriotic!"


If you're entire strategy is to get people to love you by hating things... well that explains all the rape rape talk.

/hatred of all things "un-American" is NOT EQUAL to love of all things American, by the very definition of freedom itself
 
2014-02-12 06:52:30 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Fart_Machine: Eskaminagaga: It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong.

So am I allowed to legally discriminate against religious people because I find their practices morally wrong?

Only if there is a law in effect saying that you can.


False. Discrimination is illegal.
 
2014-02-12 06:58:54 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: Kansas has gay people?

[pcj.typepad.com image 800x369]


Certain areas do.  WIchita has an active gay community, with several gay clubs/bars and the annual Wichita Pride Festival.  I'm sure Laurence does too.  Outside of that... uhhhh....
 
2014-02-12 07:21:20 PM  

WraithSama: Zeb Hesselgresser: Kansas has gay people?

[pcj.typepad.com image 800x369]

Certain areas do.  WIchita has an active gay community, with several gay clubs/bars and the annual Wichita Pride Festival.  I'm sure Laurence does too.  Outside of that... uhhhh....


You joke, but the fact is, homosexuals live everywhere. That little podunk out in the middle of nowhere? There's gay folks living there most likely.

All this bullshiat law does is enable bigots to continue being bigots even in the execution of their jobs and even if they are employed by the state or a local municipality. It's very transparent what this is... It's an attempt to keep homosexuals relegated to second-class citizenship because of ass backwards religious dogma. Pain and simple.

I'm guessing this still has to make its way through the state senate, but I doubt this law will survive. Too bad Kansans (is that correct?) will be hurt by this law before the inevitable challenge should it become law.

On the plus side, it's a great demonstration of the bigotry, mean-spiritedness, and general regressive nature of the GOP heading into a mid-term and into the next presidential election.
 
2014-02-12 07:25:15 PM  
The only real takeaway I get from such pointless grandstanding is "thank goodness for a bicameral system." Without the benefit of a Senate willing to take a longer, more measured view, which balances a House willing to ignore precedent, law, and reality to pander to religious nutcases, we'd end up with even crazier shiat instituted as law.

The state House can pass all of the crazy bullshiat it likes - I'm only going to worry about it if it's taken seriously by the state Senate as well. The only real crime here is watching bigots waste taxpayer money to appeal to other bigots come the next election.
 
2014-02-12 07:37:01 PM  

Hugh2d2: Some questions:

Can I start my own religion & discriminate against legislators, or do I need a pre-approved religion? If so, can I discriminate against people who are left handed? Against the "wrong kind" of christian? Against people who eat shellfish? Against people who wear material mixed of wool and linen together?


The SCOTUS ruled years ago that it's not the government's business to determine what constitutes a real religion (which is why Universal Life Church can make you a minister for $5 through the mail).  So yes, make your own religion and have one of its tenets be "Christians and Politicians and Lefties and Shrimp-eaters and Mixed-Fiber Wearers are abominations and we will have no interaction with them".  You'll probably get sued, but it will open up the "what's a real religion" can of worms.
 
2014-02-12 07:43:21 PM  

Eskaminagaga: And in those extreme cases, they would have the right to do so under the bill. Hopefully the couple knowing about this bill would have the foresight to either not tell the person that they are celebrating their wedding, or make other arrangements.

If the bill ever passes the senate, i don't think you would find many cases of this happening, though.


Say, my religion believes that n*****s are inferior and hold the Mark of Cain and it's against God's will to do business with them.  Would you support my right to not do business with any n******s and deny them service at any place I own or work?  Also, can I call them n*****s to their face when I say I'm not going to let them buy anything at my store?
 
2014-02-12 07:47:17 PM  

Eskaminagaga: Fart_Machine: Eskaminagaga: It just prevents the individual person or religious entity from being sued for doing or perpetuating something that they have been told all of their life is morally wrong.

So am I allowed to legally discriminate against religious people because I find their practices morally wrong?

Only if there is a law in effect saying that you can.


So it's only OK to be a bigot if you're a religious one.  Well thanks for the clarification.

Leishu: Nope. According to this law, only the gays can be discriminated against, out of all protected classes.


Yeah, and the same folks who passed this bullshait would become apoplectic if you did this to their brand of Christianity.
 
2014-02-12 07:58:17 PM  

TV's Vinnie: If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.


Almost every religion that has ever existed (and indeed, most of the ones that exist even today) involves some form of bigotry. The only variables are the group(s) of people the bigotry is directed against, its intensity, and just how central a tenet it is.
 
2014-02-12 08:10:11 PM  

Leishu: Government employees =/= Government entity.

And you, again, are glossing over the fact that some of these are time-sensitive situations.


The time-sensitive thing reminds of a CSB from my wedding.

We were getting married in St. Louis, my wife's hometown, which is about 8 hours from where we were living at the time.  Missouri has some strict laws about marriage certificates, mainly you both have to be present, in person to apply and they're only valid for like a week.  In addition, both St. Louis and St. Charles Counties have three-day waiting periods between when you apply and when you can get the certificate, so we had to drive about an hour on Friday, two days before the wedding, to little Troy, Missouri, the county seat of Lincoln County to get our certificate.  Did I mention that it was Friday, July 1st with the 4th of July on the following Monday?  There were all of about three people working that day.  Imagine if we were a gay couple wanting to get a marriage license in this rural town with this law on the books:

"Sorry, but John's the only one here who does marriage certificates for the gays and he's on vacation. You'll have to come back Tuesday.  Oh, you're going to be in the Caribbean for a week and then are flying directly back to Kansas after that?  Sorry, I guess you're not getting married then."
 
2014-02-12 08:19:26 PM  

Biological Ali: TV's Vinnie: If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.

Almost every religion that has ever existed (and indeed, most of the ones that exist even today) involves some form of bigotry. The only variables are the group(s) of people the bigotry is directed against, its intensity, and just how central a tenet it is.


Not anywhere near as close as Christianity seems to be.

Yes, even Islam isn't as bad since it does allow anyone to convert over. These right wing types only want you if you're Aryan white and loaded with cash. Any shade darker and you're only allowed so long as you scrub the floors and get back to your hovels before sundown.
 
2014-02-12 08:41:12 PM  

thurstonxhowell: cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.


Precisely. We slow roast the gays with a mild pepper blend. Compromise.
 
2014-02-12 08:44:23 PM  

FormlessOne: The only real takeaway I get from such pointless grandstanding is "thank goodness for a bicameral system." Without the benefit of a Senate willing to take a longer, more measured view, which balances a House willing to ignore precedent, law, and reality to pander to religious nutcases, we'd end up with even crazier shiat instituted as law.

The state House can pass all of the crazy bullshiat it likes - I'm only going to worry about it if it's taken seriously by the state Senate as well. The only real crime here is watching bigots waste taxpayer money to appeal to other bigots come the next election.


This is Kansas. Nearly every goddamn one of 'em is a rabid conservative jackass. House, Senate, Governor, US House, US Senate. Assholes, nearly every one.

www.aero-news.net

This jackass is getting a bit of coverage because he doesnt actually have a home in his district - he rents a room at a "friend's house".

media.kansasfirstnews.com

Then there's this jackhole who's gotten some press lately for making the Tea Party types seem tame. When he got kicked off committees last year, other Congressman denied it was an Anti-Tea Party issue but attributed it to "the Asshole Factor".

Think of how much of an asshole you have to be to make Republicans call you an unreasonable Asshole.

They still let Ted Cruz stay on committees, but *this one* was too much to stand.
 
2014-02-12 08:45:41 PM  
So, if this bill passes, a Muslim owner of a gas station could refuse to sell fuel to a woman because she's showing too much skin? Or a Jewish hotel owner could refuse to provide lodging to Christians? Or an atheist could refuse to provide anything to everyone? Yea, no unintended consequences in this well thought out plan.
 
2014-02-12 09:17:41 PM  

geek_mars: So, if this bill passes, a Muslim owner of a gas station could refuse to sell fuel to a woman because she's showing too much skin? Or a Jewish hotel owner could refuse to provide lodging to Christians? Or an atheist could refuse to provide anything to everyone? Yea, no unintended consequences in this well thought out plan.


Nope. The law specifically targets homosexual married couples. Bigot fodder at its most unmasked.
 
2014-02-12 09:30:46 PM  

ristst: ATTENTION:

Kansas is not part of the South.

/thank you and have a nice day


They are NOT mid-west either they are part of the "Great Plains"
 
2014-02-12 09:35:55 PM  

CheapEngineer: FormlessOne: The only real takeaway I get from such pointless grandstanding is "thank goodness for a bicameral system." Without the benefit of a Senate willing to take a longer, more measured view, which balances a House willing to ignore precedent, law, and reality to pander to religious nutcases, we'd end up with even crazier shiat instituted as law.

The state House can pass all of the crazy bullshiat it likes - I'm only going to worry about it if it's taken seriously by the state Senate as well. The only real crime here is watching bigots waste taxpayer money to appeal to other bigots come the next election.

This is Kansas. Nearly every goddamn one of 'em is a rabid conservative jackass. House, Senate, Governor, US House, US Senate. Assholes, nearly every one.

[www.aero-news.net image 400x246]

This jackass is getting a bit of coverage because he doesnt actually have a home in his district - he rents a room at a "friend's house".

[media.kansasfirstnews.com image 383x480]

Then there's this jackhole who's gotten some press lately for making the Tea Party types seem tame. When he got kicked off committees last year, other Congressman denied it was an Anti-Tea Party issue but attributed it to "the Asshole Factor".

Think of how much of an asshole you have to be to make Republicans call you an unreasonable Asshole.

They still let Ted Cruz stay on committees, but *this one* was too much to stand.


I actually feel bad for Roberts.  He's a Senator who doesn't need the perpetual campaign and he's been in Washington for 3 terms, so he rented out his house.  Big deal.  At least he didn't pull a Daschle and try to claim his Washington house as his primary residence so that he could take a bigger mortgage interest deduction.

I have to admit, I actually voted for Huelskamp once.  In my defense, I really liked his predecessor Jerry Moran, and I was actually involved in Huelskamp's debate and the Democrat who was thrown to the wolves against him was a complete prick (Huelskamp's district is heavily rural and Republican so he was pretty much a guarantee).  After four years, I now know why he was such a prick.  Huelskamp is a grade-A asshole.
 
2014-02-12 09:47:31 PM  

scottydoesntknow: tobcc: I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.

Churches can refuse to marry any heterosexual couples for any reason, so they can still refuse same-sex couples.


Churches don't marry anyone.  The State marries people.  Churches (among other designated institutions, including literally any legal adult in some states) are allowed by the State to perform wedding ceremonies.  That's it. Without the state documentation, signed by a representative of the government, your wedding ceremony means exactly dick, legally speaking.
 
2014-02-12 09:57:37 PM  

Leishu: geek_mars: So, if this bill passes, a Muslim owner of a gas station could refuse to sell fuel to a woman because she's showing too much skin? Or a Jewish hotel owner could refuse to provide lodging to Christians? Or an atheist could refuse to provide anything to everyone? Yea, no unintended consequences in this well thought out plan.

Nope. The law specifically targets homosexual married couples. Bigot fodder at its most unmasked.


Skimmed over that on my first read, but I think this way is going to work out even worse that intended for Kansas Republicans. By singling out homosexuals, they've provided further support to the idea that homosexuals need political protection in order to achieve social equality. I wonder how much taxpayer money they'll spend defending this turd.
 
2014-02-12 10:26:17 PM  

geek_mars: Skimmed over that on my first read, but I think this way is going to work out even worse that intended for Kansas Republicans. By singling out homosexuals, they've provided further support to the idea that homosexuals need political protection in order to achieve social equality. I wonder how much taxpayer money they'll spend defending this turd.


All of it, given the chance.
 
2014-02-12 11:48:08 PM  

cchris_39: NkThrasher: "Do your damned job as prescribed by law and provide services to citizens, stop trying to pretend you can artificially filter it based on your own personal biases".

Oh I would never refuse to serve anyone.  Can you imagine the fun and after work jokes I'd be missing out on?

You'd grow old at the end of the line trying to get your paperwork right (this time) or resubmitting something that somehow can't be found (again).  The irony is that YOU would be the one begging for someone else to help you.

But you would be greeted by my smiling face every time, ready to serve you with all the competence and enthusiasm you would expect from an irate government employee.


Wow, you really are an asshole.
 
2014-02-12 11:59:59 PM  

Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.


If you need to apologize, then I need to commit ritual suicide as I live in Oklahoma.
 
2014-02-13 12:07:03 AM  
I think all that Roundup they spray all over everything there has affected their brains and not in a good way.
 
2014-02-13 12:23:26 AM  

cchris_39: NkThrasher: "Do your damned job as prescribed by law and provide services to citizens, stop trying to pretend you can artificially filter it based on your own personal biases".

Oh I would never refuse to serve anyone.  Can you imagine the fun and after work jokes I'd be missing out on?

You'd grow old at the end of the line trying to get your paperwork right (this time) or resubmitting something that somehow can't be found (again).  The irony is that YOU would be the one begging for someone else to help you.

But you would be greeted by my smiling face every time, ready to serve you with all the competence and enthusiasm you would expect from an irate government employee.


Good. Just as I suspected, you should only be employed as the guy who gets kicked in the teeth by anyone who feels like kicking someone in the teeth.
 
2014-02-13 01:08:33 AM  

Theaetetus: Mrembo: scottydoesntknow: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

[www.portableshrines.com image 500x279]

Was coming to paste the same quote.

Wow! in what universe does that make any sense??????

"Your religion says that one should love and accept thy neighbor, while my religion says that I should be a hateful fark. Your laws let you love and accept people, but they don't let me be a bigot. Therefore, you're discriminating against my religious freedom!"

It's logical. Evil, twisted, and a good argument for theocide, but it's at least logical.


Wouldn't this law make Kansas a mecca (so to speak) for crazy fundamentalist religious nutbags of every stripe? I mean The same twisted evil logic could be used to argue that not raping people is a service, one they don't have to provide if they have a heartfelt religious belief that raping the opposite sex is OK. Same for genital mutilations, honour killings, arranged marriages, the possibilities are endless!
 
2014-02-13 01:32:15 AM  

Eskaminagaga: scottydoesntknow: Eskaminagaga: I don't see what everyone is up in arms about. This bill seems more like a way to avoid being sued by homosexual couples for not wanting to celebrate or aid their marrage in any way. The language in the bill specifically calls out:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual
or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious
beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities,
goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other
social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to,
or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid.

It looks more like a reaction to the guy who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple getting married than a "green light" for discrimination against homosexuals.

Highlighting that one part doesn't negate all the other parts you didn't highlight. I highlighted those for you. You're welcome

Gay marriage has not been passed in Kansas, so they couldnt get married there in the first place. The only issue I can see is if people filing taxes uses a religious tax agency that would refuse to file anything jointly.


It isn't just marriage... you could have public officers refuse to acknowledge powers of attorney or medical decision making because they feel it would solemnize the relationship in violation of their sincere religious views.
 
2014-02-13 02:32:10 AM  

CheapEngineer: eagles95: So when is Brownback going to start putting out feelers he wants to be President in 16. He's doing a great job with this, no taxes on business, abortion. Plus living in a fly over state, he can say stupid crap and not worry about it. Kind of like Walker except without the permanent DERP look

[brownbackistan.files.wordpress.com image 160x207]


He looks tired.
 
2014-02-13 04:00:56 AM  
Some "Christian" Innkeeper is literally going to use this law to turn away a gay couple around a future Christmas. If that kind of doublethink and hypocrisy doesn't get your dick hard, nothing will.
 
2014-02-13 04:20:26 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life

I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.


This kind of crap is part of Kansas' problem. If the state is ever going to get back on a sane track, people from the rest of the state will have to get over their spite towards Johnson County, and work with the pockets of centrists and progressives with money from that area.

/raised in South JoCo... Deal with it.
//got the heck out
///still want the state to stop embarrassing itself
 
2014-02-13 04:27:18 AM  

geek_mars: So, if this bill passes, a Muslim owner of a gas station could refuse to sell fuel to a woman because she's showing too much skin? Or a Jewish hotel owner could refuse to provide lodging to Christians? Or an atheist could refuse to provide anything to everyone? Yea, no unintended consequences in this well thought out plan.


If I remember it right, cause I read it yesterday, it's only as it pertains to a marriage or the celebration of a marriage.

So if you want to get married, the Muslim who happens to own the reception hall could totally deny you because you're Christian.
 
2014-02-13 10:21:36 AM  

Leishu: geek_mars: So, if this bill passes, a Muslim owner of a gas station could refuse to sell fuel to a woman because she's showing too much skin? Or a Jewish hotel owner could refuse to provide lodging to Christians? Or an atheist could refuse to provide anything to everyone? Yea, no unintended consequences in this well thought out plan.

Nope. The law specifically targets homosexual married couples. Bigot fodder at its most unmasked.


Strictly speaking though, if this bill stands up in court (which it won't) it could pave the way for any number of other similar bills that allow discrimination of non-federally protected classes of people. Hell, wasn't there a bill attempted elsewhere that would not punish students for bullying if they were bullying for "religious reasons"? Ridiculous.
 
2014-02-13 10:23:51 AM  

Pimparoo: Voiceofreason01: Aquapope: I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life

I can smell the Johnson County on you from all the way over here.

This kind of crap is part of Kansas' problem. If the state is ever going to get back on a sane track, people from the rest of the state will have to get over their spite towards Johnson County, and work with the pockets of centrists and progressives with money from that area.

/raised in South JoCo... Deal with it.
//got the heck out
///still want the state to stop embarrassing itself


Not everyone in Kansas has a "Johnson County" problem. I live in Wichita, and couldn't give 2 farks about it, even if I had any idea where it was.

Now, the people who keep voting for the farkwits we send to public office, *everywhere* in the state - that's who I have a problem with.

\I eagerly await all proclamations on how stupid I am for not knowing the political intricacies of Johnson County, Kansas, and the inevitable self-righteous schooling on how I just must be a blithering mouth-breathing idiot for not bothering to pay attention to Basic Government
\\agreed on the "ashamed to tell people I still live here" part

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVMIbxVRqA

Huelskamp is at it again
 
2014-02-13 10:38:14 AM  
Might want to point out to Kansas that they just made Sharia Law the real law there. I'm curious to see how long this law stands once they realize that Muslims could deny people service based on gender and sincerely held religious belief.
 
2014-02-13 09:14:04 PM  
A friend of mine emailed his state senator about the bill today and received the following response:

"Thank you for reaching out to me with your concern regarding HB2453.  You will be happy to know from what I understand the Senate will not be taking up this bill.

For Kansas,

Michael O'Donnell"

And this is a pastor complaining about the bill, for Christ's sake.
 
Displayed 352 of 352 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report