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 135
    More: Asinine, Kansas House, Kansas, same-sex couples, discrimination, Kansas Legislature  
•       •       •

3856 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

sincerely,
      Voiceofreason01
2014-02-12 01:36:12 PM  
8 votes:
God damn these people waste a lot of time and effort pushing their bigotry...
2014-02-12 01:41:11 PM  
7 votes:
If there needed to be anything added to the federal argument that gay people need special protections then a state passing a law saying it's OK to discriminate against them will surely help.
2014-02-12 04:05:37 PM  
6 votes:
If your "religion" is based on being cruel to people, then it's not a religion. It's your convenient excuse for being an asshole.
2014-02-12 01:37:05 PM  
6 votes:
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

I... I hate you, Mr. Macheers. I've never met you, but I actually have some small spark of hate for the sentiment and hypocrisy you display.
2014-02-12 01:56:12 PM  
5 votes:

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

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


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

Him: "Allowing gays to change the definition of marriage will irreparably harm the institution of marriage!"
Me: "Really?  So you're saying that if two guys go down to the county courthouse and get hitched, you'll stop loving your wife?  You'd have to divorce her and leave the kids?  Tell you what, let me see your phone for a second, I think she needs to know just how small of a thread her relationship is hanging on by."
2014-02-12 01:48:35 PM  
5 votes:
If this passes, I wanna take up a collection.  I'm going open a storefront.  The sign in my window will say

"No Crosses.
Turbans OK."

I expect full support of my religious freedom.

/or, we can take bets on when an upstanding christian will gun me down in church
2014-02-12 01:44:31 PM  
5 votes:
Religious freedom allows you to practice your RELIGION.

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

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

1) Prove that your religion specifically REQUIRES you to do the specific activity.  Jews can't shoot all pigs on sight simple because we don't eat pork.  The religion requires us to avoid eating pork, not kill all pigs.
2)  Prove that your religion held that belief BEFORE the law outlawing the activity was created or failing that, that the religion was created without any attempt to subvert the law.
3) Also prove that your religious activity does NOT directly impinge on the rights of others.  You can not practice human sacrifice simply because you are practicing Incan High Priest.
2014-02-12 01:38:15 PM  
5 votes:
So, because I'm a Catholic and hate Protestants I'm cool to discriminate against them.

Good to know.
2014-02-12 03:32:21 PM  
4 votes:

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

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


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

Thanks for letting us know your true feelings on the matter. It's refreshing to see an unashamed, ignorant bigot with the strength of their convictions.
2014-02-12 02:31:41 PM  
4 votes:

cchris_39: FTA -

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

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

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

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


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

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

If you cannot provide that service in "good conscience" to 100% of the people who legally request it - be they white, middle aged, able-bodied Christians or young, brown-skinned, turban-wearing, thrice disabled (one of them an Autism-spectrum disorder) gay Sikhs - find a different job. You don't get to substitute your judgement for the state's when it comes to things the state's already decided on with legislatures and courts and everything.
2014-02-12 01:43:02 PM  
4 votes:
No, I will not stop posting this quote from US v. Lee (1982):

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

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

Would that qualify for "unusual punishment" since it's not based on any regular metric?
2014-02-12 01:42:36 PM  
4 votes:
FTFB(ill):
treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid

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

DENIED!

You're gay, bi, trans, mixed race couple. Come right in and have a seat. Here's a free sample!
2014-02-12 03:39:26 PM  
3 votes:

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

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


No one is forcing the county clerk to get gay married. No religious beliefs are being compromised. Complaining that they're icky and you don't want to deal with them because you're unfamiliar with your own religious texts is dumb, but do your goddamn job. Save the complaints for facebook.
2014-02-12 03:06:46 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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


Umm... forced? No, they are free to find another job if their beliefs prevent them from doing this one.
2014-02-12 03:02:33 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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




Short Answer: Yes
Longer Answer: Hell Yes!
2014-02-12 02:13:53 PM  
3 votes:
I'm a Kansan, born and raised for almost my whole life.  I apologize.  I really do.  I can't explain Kansas.  I actually know the wife (dated her in high school) of one of the GOP bigwigs in the Kansas Government, and she used to be a very liberal person.  Then something happened to her...  Kansas has always been pretty Jesusy, but it's turned incredibly virulent in the last 10 years.

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

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

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

/crying in the corner of a rectangular state...
2014-02-12 02:09:12 PM  
3 votes:
So now they support sharia law?
2014-02-12 01:49:07 PM  
3 votes:
You know, theres quite a few open spots in Gitmo to put these Kansas religious extremists, who continue to commit domestic terrorism, by using their religion to write law.

/Separation of church and State is the law, either obey it or get the f*ck out
//there an African nation looking for christian freedom fighters, today.
2014-02-12 01:47:48 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

Laws like this will make it harder to get prescriptions, services, and lodging. The democrat quoted in the article is worried about police officers which i guess makes sense. I would be more worried about pharmacies and hotels refusing service. Where would you get needed medication or a place to stay if you needed it and were denied because you "sound gay."
2014-02-12 01:47:44 PM  
3 votes:

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



The Civil Rights Act of 1964 disagrees with you.
Go ahead and google "Public Accomidations".
2014-02-12 01:40:39 PM  
3 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org

Truer words, never written.
2014-02-12 01:38:13 PM  
3 votes:
I use the same argument with coworkers/ family that scream about gay marriage will ruin the world.  If you dont want to get gay married, then dont.  If someone elses marriage affects your marriage than you got a an F-d up marriage.  I do wonder what will happen when this law gets thrown out, I would love to see a gay couple force Westboro Baptist to marry them.
2014-02-12 01:26:53 PM  
3 votes:
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

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

Will a fundamentalist Muslim business owner be able to deny services to women who are not covered in a burqa because they are violating his deeply held religious beliefs?
2014-02-12 04:10:41 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


If an employee can discriminate against customers because of their religious beliefs, why can't an employer discriminate against employees because of their religious beliefs?
2014-02-12 04:00:45 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


The pharmacist should also lose their license.
2014-02-12 03:48:20 PM  
2 votes:

I drunk what: kansas is racist because it is afraid


img.fark.net

Q&D.
2014-02-12 03:48:02 PM  
2 votes:

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


Sure, if by "one guy" you mean "the Kansas State House of Representatives".
2014-02-12 03:46:03 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

There's a lot people who have an entirely fictional understanding of their rights. We really, REALLY need to do a better job teaching it in school. The stupidity in this country is scary.
2014-02-12 03:44:45 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

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

The worst part of it is they all know none of this in any way violates anything to do with their religions. They just don't agree with something and are hiding behind lies about their religion. It's kind of sickening that any court allows any of it to go on, ever.
2014-02-12 03:42:35 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


At this point, the only way any of the Republicans in the state legislature will lose their positions is if somebody even more insane than them wins in the primary.
2014-02-12 03:30:20 PM  
2 votes:
Some questions:

Can I start my own religion & discriminate against legislators, or do I need a pre-approved religion? If so, can I discriminate against people who are left handed? Against the "wrong kind" of christian? Against people who eat shellfish? Against people who wear material mixed of wool and linen together?
2014-02-12 03:26:22 PM  
2 votes:
This is from another discussion I was having about it:

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


And in rural Kansas this is a HIGHLY likely scenario.

The pastor at my wife's church refused to let us get married in his church because I hadn't "accepted Jesus as my savior." Well within his right to do so. But to have a state employee refuse to take my money for taxes or car tags or any other service because I'm not a fan of the Jesus fan-club, that's ENTIRELY different.
2014-02-12 03:25:29 PM  
2 votes:
I just discovered that my rep voted for this piece of crap and it has me legitimately thinking about running for office for the first time.  The guy is in a fairly moderate district so I think he could be beaten and the filing fee is only $105 or 2% of registered voters on a petition (which is probably about 150-200 people or so).  This whole thing just pisses me off and makes the entire state look backwards as hell.

/Submitted with a better headline.
//Basically just the discrimination quotation.
2014-02-12 03:18:23 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Just like black people had their own bathrooms, right? Nothing was compromised, and they had access to the same services as white people. I mean, how hard is it to find the Black Bathroom anyway? Weren't they usually right next to the White Bathrooms?
2014-02-12 02:56:33 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

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


Are they paid to serve me? If so, yes.
2014-02-12 02:42:38 PM  
2 votes:

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

Probably move.

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


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

Look, I'm all for states-rights. But, being discriminatory is not a right that the government gets to have.
2014-02-12 02:35:38 PM  
2 votes:

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


If an employee won't do their job, why are they even there?
2014-02-12 02:32:11 PM  
2 votes:

cchris_39: FTA -

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

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

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

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


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

That seems not only pretty reasonable, but actually ought to be the law everywhere in a country ostensibly founded on personal liberty and separation of church and state.
2014-02-12 02:08:48 PM  
2 votes:
Laser-like focus on job creation!
2014-02-12 02:06:12 PM  
2 votes:
Do the "sincerely held religious beliefs" need to be backed up by institutional doctrine? Or can it just be what your un-medicated schizophrenic head imagines is true?
2014-02-12 02:03:31 PM  
2 votes:
You hear that, Muslims? You can be completely free to live under the guidelines of Islam if you move to Kansas.
2014-02-12 02:03:10 PM  
2 votes:
I would try to get Muslims to move to Kansas so they can start refusing to do things for Christians. Then have Jews move there so they could start refusing do do things for Christians.

Just for giggles, have them force everyone to pray to Mecca. This law would go away so fast.
2014-02-12 02:01:17 PM  
2 votes:
BTW, do you think there would be a Democratic legislator in Kansas brave enough to call the Republitards bluff and say, "okay, let's up the list of exemptions from sex and gender to sex, creed, religion, race, gender, and physical/mental handicap"  Put the assholes on the spot and have them revote the entire discrimination act for Kansas.
2014-02-12 02:00:35 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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


I would say that the same analysis applies here.
2014-02-12 01:55:56 PM  
2 votes:
farm4.staticflickr.com
2014-02-12 01:54:45 PM  
2 votes:
The GOP is cutting off their nose to spite their face. If their goal is to keep benefits from gay people, this isn't the way to go about it. In fact, this law is almost certain to get tossed, either by the State Supreme Court, or the SCOTUS. And that will serve to confirm the rights of the gays. I don't think they thought their cunning plan all the way through. I know, I know. I'm as shocked as you are...
2014-02-12 01:51:15 PM  
2 votes:
done in one.

the mental disconnect is astounding.

Not all of us are like this.
2014-02-12 01:48:47 PM  
2 votes:
i47.photobucket.com
2014-02-12 01:46:33 PM  
2 votes:

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


Read the bill a little closer.

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



Translation: if I'm the local bumfark sheriff in BF county I can refuse to bring domestic violence charges against a couple.  If I'm the local judge, I can say fark you to the two gays who want to get married, divorced, adopt a child, or so forth.  And if you're in a one-judge or one-sheriff county you're plain the fark out of luck.
2014-02-12 01:45:48 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

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

Would you be making that same statement if the wedding cake company (who is NOT a religious institution) decided to not serve a black or interracial couple getting married?
2014-02-12 01:44:12 PM  
2 votes:
I've heard from any number of concern trolls who have reacted to Michael Sams coming out with some variation on this: "Why do we have to hear about this? I mean, I don't care. I just wish we would get to the point where this isn't news."

Well, we can get to that point after this kind of shiat (among other things) stops.
2014-02-12 01:44:08 PM  
2 votes:

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

[www.portableshrines.com image 500x279]

Was coming to paste the same quote.

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


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

It's logical. Evil, twisted, and a good argument for theocide, but it's at least logical.
2014-02-12 01:42:19 PM  
2 votes:

ristst: ATTENTION:

Kansas is not part of the South.

/thank you and have a nice day


Accidents of geography notwithstanding, I'm calling bullshiat. ;)
2014-02-12 01:41:53 PM  
2 votes:

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

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


Small?  SMALL spark of hate?  You're a better person than me, apparently.
2014-02-12 01:41:46 PM  
2 votes:
Kansas, meet supremacy clause.  Supremacy clause, Kansas.
2014-02-12 01:40:38 PM  
2 votes:
"Largely backed by Republican state lawmakers"

you_dont_say.jpg
2014-02-12 01:39:25 PM  
2 votes:
1. Kansas does rrrrrealllly stupid sh*t.
2. there are enough people so incredibly stupid that they'd elect degenerates like this and re-elect them.
3. Brownback is a terrible person, a terrible governor and deserves to be forced to live in South Beach for the rest of his days, working as a janitor cleaning up bathrooms in a very popular gay bar for minimum wage.
2014-02-12 01:38:57 PM  
2 votes:
ATTENTION:

Kansas is not part of the South.

/thank you and have a nice day
2014-02-12 01:31:14 PM  
2 votes:
Petulant children

/who will get spanked before it's all over
2014-02-13 10:38:14 AM  
1 votes:
Might want to point out to Kansas that they just made Sharia Law the real law there. I'm curious to see how long this law stands once they realize that Muslims could deny people service based on gender and sincerely held religious belief.
2014-02-13 01:32:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 01:08:33 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:26 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2014-02-12 10:26:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:57:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:47:31 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:45:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:47:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:43:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:52:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:23:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:21:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:17:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:43:10 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:23:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:18:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 05:10:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:34:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:33:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:31:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:25:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:13:39 PM  
1 votes:
How pathetic is it there are people here in favor of enabling bigotry among state and municipal workers and protecting them from any consequences of denying tax payer funded services to homosexuals?

...And calling it a "compromise"? Unreal.
2014-02-12 04:07:00 PM  
1 votes:

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


The sad thing is that you're actually proud of that.
2014-02-12 04:03:58 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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


Their understanding of the constitution and what it means is fundamentally flawed. The whole thing escapes their grasp, see first amendment in particular.  "You can't fire him for what he said about the gay's!" "Why hasn't *insert name here* been fired for saying those nasty things about *conservative pundit or politician*"
2014-02-12 03:58:03 PM  
1 votes:
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Macheers said.


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

see also: What the f*ck is with Republicans that don't understand the 14th amendment? Didn't they attend their class on the Constitution? How is an obviously unconstitutional law in any way fiscally responsible?
2014-02-12 03:50:21 PM  
1 votes:

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


When all else fails, revert to 1980s stereotypes and avoid any germane questions that might otherwise cause you to look critically at your beliefs.
2014-02-12 03:48:52 PM  
1 votes:

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


I wish there was some sort of "Party Pays" law that said when a political party puts up a law that is supremely unconstitutional (voter Id, gun bans, anti-abortion, etc.), that party has to pay for ALL court costs.
2014-02-12 03:41:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


Your rights end at the tip of your nose. If the government provides services and you work for the government, get over it. It isn't a violation of anyone's first amendment rights.
2014-02-12 03:39:21 PM  
1 votes:
P - "I'd like to renew my registration and get a dog license please"

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

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

C- "Not my problem"
2014-02-12 03:37:16 PM  
1 votes:
Once this self-fulfilling prophesy gets shut down in federal court, the herpaderpers are going to have all the ammo they need to retain their incumbency.

/Kansan
//interviewed with Lance Kinzer, didn't get the job
2014-02-12 03:36:41 PM  
1 votes:

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

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


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

Methinks there might be a bit of ensuring they have work for the next few years, billed $400 hours at a time.
2014-02-12 03:36:07 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: FTA -

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

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

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

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


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

Just like the licensed pharmacist: do your farking job and shut your pie hole, and keep in mind that your job is not to make moral religious determinations about the farker in front of you. That's the internet's job.
2014-02-12 03:32:06 PM  
1 votes:

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


To borrow a line from Dodgeball:  I'm pretty sure this is what Lawyers call, "The Jackpot."
2014-02-12 03:30:33 PM  
1 votes:
I can't imagine this will stand up to even the barest amount of scrutiny, though I do imagine the lawyers are already lining up to take shots at it. And then we'll have to listen to the wailing and gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments, over how mean old Obummer Hussein and his goosestepping federal brownshirts trod all over States' Rights.
2014-02-12 03:25:20 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


No, I think I should be served by the official that I am currently paying to serve me.
2014-02-12 03:23:24 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

Oh wait, no, it was dilapidation.
2014-02-12 03:21:12 PM  
1 votes:

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


I wouldn't bet on the Republicans backing down. At the last convention of the ruling Conservative Party of Canada (who are supposed to be slightly less crazy than the Republicans) they officially adopted exactly that position - they want to recognize "sincerely held religious belief" as an ironclad defense against any charge of discrimination under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our BoR). I suspect the Kansas GOP would be ecstatic to have the chance to do the same, no matter how short-lived the result may be.
2014-02-12 03:20:37 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Nope.  They look pretty stupid right now.
2014-02-12 03:19:54 PM  
1 votes:
I'm getting a job as a county clerk in Kansas.

My religion prohibits having contact with bigots and morons.

I'll be in once a month to pickup my check.
2014-02-12 03:13:02 PM  
1 votes:
If you're serving the public and you're asshooligan religion doesn't allow you to serve the public

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

/they want to be seen as a legitimate business, without being one
2014-02-12 03:09:48 PM  
1 votes:

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


If you can't or won't do the job, quit.
2014-02-12 03:08:16 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

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

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

If you hadn't already painted yourself as somewhat willfully ignorant, I'm sure my comment would be useful, but as it is, I expect you fully to somehow continue this insane idiocy, possibly with a dollop of "Why are you being intolerant of bigotry!!?!?!11" to drive home exactly how stupid you are.
2014-02-12 03:07:02 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


[MS Word Paperclip]
Oops, looks like you phrased that as a question.  Don't worry, I modified it for you.  I know I'd sure hate to look like a bigoted arsehole.
2014-02-12 02:42:58 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


Yeah. They'd like to burn gays at the stake, sane people would like to treat gays like they would treat any other people. Clearly, this is an example of a situation where both sides need to compromise.
2014-02-12 02:35:36 PM  
1 votes:

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


You cited the 10th Amendment?  That's adorable.
2014-02-12 02:33:59 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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


No doubt. They wanted everyone to know they hated the homogheys.
2014-02-12 02:31:03 PM  
1 votes:
Jeezuz tapdancing christ on a cracker.

someone just shoot all of them please.
2014-02-12 02:29:54 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

/Imho, it wasn't about "being smart", it was about "being martyrs"...
2014-02-12 02:28:06 PM  
1 votes:

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


What if all employees in that office object?
2014-02-12 02:27:47 PM  
1 votes:
Why stop at same sex couples? Why not allow discrimination against any "marriage" that doesn't conform to a particular set of religious principles.

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

Why is Kansas discriminating against devout Catholics?
2014-02-12 02:27:40 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: FTA -

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

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

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

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


And if you are in the middle of bum-fark nowhere and you have one sheriff and two deputies that make up the local police department and they are all bigoted a-holes that dont' want to help you....what are you going to do?
2014-02-12 02:26:11 PM  
1 votes:

cchris_39: That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.


no.
2014-02-12 02:24:49 PM  
1 votes:
FTA -

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

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

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

That seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.
2014-02-12 02:22:56 PM  
1 votes:

busy chillin': What war did we lose?


The Great War of Variances in Elevation
2014-02-12 02:19:35 PM  
1 votes:

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

Since when are Govt services a part of religious freedom?


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

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

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

O_o


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

Was the Sick tag too sick to show up for work today?
2014-02-12 02:11:57 PM  
1 votes:
In the below photo, I will let the viewer determine which person represents the state of Kansas and which person represents Article Six of the United States Constitution (Clause 2), also known as the Supremacy Clause:

i78.photobucket.com
2014-02-12 02:11:01 PM  
1 votes:

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

It would.

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


Here's the roll call for the Kansas House for the bill in question. Everybody who voted "Yea" can be on the short list for a swift kick to the genitals.
2014-02-12 02:10:54 PM  
1 votes:

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


It's more than that. This didn't just get brought up in committee where people laughed and said "This will make you look good Bob, but we really can't vote/pass this because it's unconstitutional. But good show for the rubes". It passed the actual House in Kansas. Now it's on to the Senate there.
2014-02-12 02:10:05 PM  
1 votes:
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
2014-02-12 02:06:45 PM  
1 votes:
Let's ask an actual Old Testament believer (and religious scholar) for his opinion: "Bashing Gays is Not 'Religion'".

// not like they'll take a Jew's word for it
// they don't even listen to Jesus anymore
2014-02-12 02:02:57 PM  
1 votes:

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

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

DENIED!

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

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


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

As an example: Kidgenius could say that it is his sincerely held belief that the heterosexual population of Kansas should all be given a good smiting for being bad neighbors (Sodom wasn't destroyed for sodomy, but because its population wanted to rape tourists).  As such, he cannot solemnize marriages for people who are so clearly behaving against the will of God.  Just as a Catholic church could refuse to marry two Protestants for not sharing the faith.
2014-02-12 02:00:04 PM  
1 votes:
Any chance of getting a Kickstarter Campaign going to buy enough wire to fence Kansas in?
We can claim our religion calls for a preemptive strike to prevent the oncoming Zombie Apocalypse.
I can now understand why Kansas is limiting the funding for Mental Health Facilities.
It would mean that there would be enough beds available if it were proven that Kansas politicians need to be committed to protect the general public.
To quote Edward R. Murrow "Good night and good luck."
2014-02-12 01:56:44 PM  
1 votes:

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


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

Regarding this law, what farking joke. These bigots are too stupid to realize they lost this debate. This law won't stand up to the first challenge.
2014-02-12 01:53:53 PM  
1 votes:

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


In America the state does not provide all goods and services.  In America private biz provides goods and services that the state does not.  If there was a state provider for all goods and services available as a non-discriminatory source you would have a leg to stand on.
2014-02-12 01:49:58 PM  
1 votes:
Kind of a Mississippi of the Mid-West.
2014-02-12 01:47:09 PM  
1 votes:
Just f**king secede already.
2014-02-12 01:45:21 PM  
1 votes:
Also, because I'm an atheist and religious conservatives tell me that this is a religion, I can now discriminate against Christians if I move to Kansas?

I'm an asshole, but I'm not a big enough asshole to do that, but the idea is amusing. One could raise ruckus stating that they feel male/female marriages were an abomination.
2014-02-12 01:42:48 PM  
1 votes:

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

[www.portableshrines.com image 500x279]


I would just like to thank Mr. Macheers, for his help in what will inevitably lead to reinforcing the wall of separation of church and state.  Thank you for helping this country in your own backward ass and hateful of anyone not just like you way.
2014-02-12 01:42:13 PM  
1 votes:
Meh. Probably not the greatest bill ever but I can see at least one point behind it. It will protect people like those wedding cake makers who made the news several months ago. I'm not a hard core Bible thumper nor am I an overzealous gay rights activist but no one should be forced or legally compelled to give service to another person. Sorry if that ruffles feathers.
2014-02-12 01:40:57 PM  
1 votes:
Some of these states sure waste a lot of money passing unconstitutional legislation but that's just how the modern conservative do, I guess.
2014-02-12 01:38:07 PM  
1 votes:
Good job, mouth breathers.
2014-02-12 01:32:55 PM  
1 votes:
That will certainly never stand up in court.
 
Displayed 135 of 135 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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