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 (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



352 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report