In an effort to get this thread back on track:
From an excerpt of the Kansas law (from the initial post in this thread), it says:
It reads, in part: "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:
"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."
My question (and maybe it's dumb) is would this mean that if a Arab Muslim guy who owned a rental car company in Kansas could refuse to rent cars to women? (Assuming that Arab Muslims don't let their women drive cars because of their religion -- which I'm not sure is the reason.)
I ask this because it says, "No individual...shall be required by the gov't...to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual...regarding.. gender." (The provision of goods and services is include in what follows.)
Seems like this opens the door for any denial of (a lot of stuff) to anyone as long as that person's gender is discriminated against in accordance with any nutty religion that the person doing the discriminating could reasonably demonstrate that their belief in that religion was sincerely held.
As an aside, that "sincerely held" stuff seems pretty weak. Could an LGBT couple sue someone for denial of (whatever) if on the grouds that they could prove that that someone regularly did things that no sincerely religious person would do? (What do you mean we can't get married in his church, he does meth and sleeps with male hookers!")
