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  
•       •       •

3851 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 1:34 PM (31 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 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
 
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