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   (huffpost.com) divider line 352
    More: Asinine, Kansas House, Kansas, same-sex couples, discrimination, Kansas Legislature  
•       •       •

3854 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 1:34 PM (1 year 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 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!
 
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 »
Advertisement
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