Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 14, 2014, 10:09:07 AM
-
These laws are going to die. The folks who are steamrolling the ongoing seismic societal shift believe sexual preference trumps the First Amendment, and I think they will win at the end of the day. Going to be a lot of wrangling over this stuff.
Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
By Ben Brumfield and Dana Ford, CNN
Thu February 13, 2014
(CNN) -- Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state.
The politics
The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.
"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.
"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."
Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.
Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.
Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.
"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity," he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.
The details
HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.
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."
Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.
There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.
If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.
It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.
The trend
The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.
Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.
Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/index.html
-
These laws are going to die. The folks who are steamrolling the ongoing seismic societal shift believe sexual preference trumps the First Amendment, and I think they will win at the end of the day. Going to be a lot of wrangling over this stuff.
Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
By Ben Brumfield and Dana Ford, CNN
Thu February 13, 2014
(CNN) -- Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state.
The politics
The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.
"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.
"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."
Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.
Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.
Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.
"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity," he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.
The details
HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.
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."
Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.
There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.
If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.
It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.
The trend
The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.
Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.
Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/index.html
Glad they did it. Its plenty of ammo for us to destroy the flat earther's as it makes them hypocrites on wanting small government not interfering with people's lives yet using that same government to disenfranchise others. Come election time, we're going to once again beat the shit out of the 47er's
-
Glad they did it. Its plenty of ammo for us to destroy the flat earther's as it makes them hypocrites on wanting small government not interfering with people's lives yet using that same government to disenfranchise others. Come election time, we're going to once again beat the shit out of the 47er's
Institutions should have the full right to refuse to perform a ceremony that is contradictory to the tenants of their beliefs. It's that simple. The gay propaganda is way out of hand and needs to stop. Stop trying to infringe upon others who don't espouse your lifestyle choices. Why should you have the right to choose your lifestyle of choice and have your own beliefs, but others are not entitled to those same rights, if they are in opposition to yours?
-
Why should you have the right to choose your lifestyle of choice and have your own beliefs, but others are not entitled to those same rights, if they are in opposition to yours?
its called liberal tolerance bro...
-
Institutions should have the full right to refuse to perform a ceremony that is contradictory to the tenants of their beliefs. It's that simple. The gay propaganda is way out of hand and needs to stop. Stop trying to infringe upon others who don't espouse your lifestyle choices. Why should you have the right to choose your lifestyle of choice and have your own beliefs, but others are not entitled to those same rights, if they are in opposition to yours?
Why reason with this guy? Reading his posts it's pretty obvious he is clueless.
-
Institutions should have the full right to refuse to perform a ceremony that is contradictory to the tenants of their beliefs. It's that simple. The gay propaganda is way out of hand and needs to stop. Stop trying to infringe upon others who don't espouse your lifestyle choices. Why should you have the right to choose your lifestyle of choice and have your own beliefs, but others are not entitled to those same rights, if they are in opposition to yours?
No, they don't have the right to refuse. They basically stepped on the Civil Rights Act. It will of course be thrown out by a federal judge but it just makes the GOP look really stupid
-
No, they don't have the right to refuse. They basically stepped on the Civil Rights Act. It will of course be thrown out by a federal judge but it just makes the GOP look really stupid
They should have that right.
-
They should not.
It's simply another form of discrimination.
Some of you people need to get over yourselves.
-
They should not.
It's simply another form of discrimination.
Some of you people need to get over yourselves.
And?
-
No, they don't have the right to refuse. They basically stepped on the Civil Rights Act. It will of course be thrown out by a federal judge but it just makes the GOP look really stupid
Yes, they certainly do. Otherwise, you're infringing on other people's beliefs and values. You're a hypocrite. You want the freedom to believe and live how you wish, but don't want to allow others the same liberty. You want to force your lifestyle down people's throats. What about other people's civil rights? Funny how it only works one way with you people.
-
Discrimination is not a civil right.
-
Discrimination is not a civil right.
It should be.
-
This is exactly why government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever. I don't see what the problem is with not marrying someone if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
This just screams of gays wanting to throw it in peoples face just because they can. It's not difficult to go find someone to marry them that doesn't have a problem with it.
-
This is exactly why government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever. I don't see what the problem is with not marrying someone if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
This just screams of gays wanting to throw it in peoples face just because they can. It's not difficult to go find someone to marry them that doesn't have a problem with it.
Exactly.
-
It should be.
x2
You should be able to refuse your services to anyone for any reason.
-
you should be able to drive your car at any speed down the road :D
-
you should be able to drive your car at any speed down the road :D
Apples and oranges.
-
Apples and oranges.
Don't bother, he's an idiot.
-
Don't bother, he's an idiot.
says the moron that doesn't realize that's why we have laws,so idiots like you don't do shit because you think it's right :D
-
says the moron that doesn't realize that's why we have laws,so idiots like you don't do shit because you think it's right :D
This is how it works. If you aren't allowed in a restaurant you eat some where else.
-
This is how it works. If you aren't allowed in a restaurant you eat some where else.
Fools like him would rather have the government intervene and force a private individual to serve him against their will.
-
Fools like him would rather have the government intervene and force a private individual to serve him against their will.
They can't make a distinction between something being wrong morally and something requiring a law to make it illegal. These are the kinds of people who create hate speech laws that squash free speech because they don't like it.
-
laws are there so idiots like you two don't take things in your own hands :D :D the fact is we have to have laws because of idiots like you :D :D
-
laws are there so idiots like you two don't take things in your own hands :D :D the fact is we have to have laws because of idiots like you :D :D
Oh please, you've failed to answer any of the arguments presented against your position.
-
no,your just to dumb to understand,are you the guy who was arguing about Mexican food a while back
-
no,your just to dumb to understand,are you the guy who was arguing about Mexican food a while back
And I was right. You're so blinded by your politics you can't think rationally
-
And I was right. You're so blinded by your politics you can't think rationally
brhahahahaa now it's making sense,and politics has nothing to do with someone being a bigot,if I had to guess I'd bet you would be arguing about the blacks wanting to eat with the whites if this was the 60's
-
brhahahahaa now it's making sense,and politics has nothing to do with someone being a bigot,if I had to guess I'd bet you would be arguing about the blacks wanting to eat with the whites if this was the 60's
So sad. The desperation is overwhelming. You can't argue so you throw out the racist stuff. Same pathetic tactic used by the left all the time.
-
why don't you just come out and say you hate gay people ,that's the only reason your complaining about this.has nothing to do with owners rights,your just a bigot.admit it,it's so obvious :o
-
why don't you just come out and say you hate gay people ,that's the only reason your complaining about this.has nothing to do with owners rights,your just a bigot.admit it,it's so obvious :o
How sad and pathetic. It always comes down to whining with the left. You can't win on the merits of your argument so you cry foul.
-
that's what I thought,what I wrote was true.and what's there to argue this will all be turned down in federal court because of laws.oh and what's sad and pathetic is that there's people that still think like you. stick to talking about Mexican food :D :D :D :D
-
that's what I thought,what I wrote was true.and what's there to argue this will all be turned down in federal court because of laws.oh and what's sad and pathetic is that there's people that still think like you. stick to talking about Mexican food :D :D :D :D
So very sad. Guys of your limited intellect always resort to accusations. You can't wrap your brains around the idea that people have opinions differ from yours. You are so emotionally invested in your ideology being absolute, right and true that you have to demonize anyone who disagrees as heretics.
-
just admit you don't like gay people and stop hiding your bigotry behind other topics, now that's what's sad. and I'm glad we have different opinions because I wouldn't want to be anything like you
answer the question
-
just admit you don't like gay people and stop hiding your bigotry behind other topics, now that's what's sad. and I'm glad we have different opinions because I wouldn't want to be anything like you
answer the question
The reason I didn't answer is because my personal feelings about homosexuals isn't the issue and you know that. It's not about me, it's about the issue. Your intention is to put me on the defensive and attack my character. This is another diversionary tactic employed by people like yourself who lack the ability to argue their position effectively.
I will say this only once. I have no problem with homosexuals. I don't give a damn about what a person does in their personal life.
-
The reason I didn't answer is because my personal feelings about homosexuals isn't the issue and you know that. It's not about me, it's about the issue. Your intention is to put me on the defensive and attack my character. This is another diversionary tactic employed by people like yourself who lack the ability to argue their position effectively.
I will say this only once. I have no problem with homosexuals. I don't give a damn about what a person does in their personal life.
well that's good to hear.there's really nothing to argue,what ever these far right kooks pass it's going to get overturned in federal court because that's the law.like arguing if the sun is going to rise,you can argue but it's not going to make a difference
-
They can't make a distinction between something being wrong morally and something requiring a law to make it illegal. These are the kinds of people who create hate speech laws that squash free speech because they don't like it.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head!
-
So very sad. Guys of your limited intellect always resort to accusations. You can't wrap your brains around the idea that people have opinions differ from yours. You are so emotionally invested in your ideology being absolute, right and true that you have to demonize anyone who disagrees as heretics.
Bwahaha. Complete and total transference.
-
Bwahaha. Complete and total transference.
Not in the least. You lack the ability to approach this issue rationally. You are to emotionally invested.
-
-
Discrimination is not, in and of itself, illegal.
I can promise you people that if you don't repent, God will show you true justice. Don't say you weren't warned.
Because it's not a civil right doesn't mean it's illegal. Lol.
-
A question for those for those of you who believe a business should be able to refuse service to gay couples.... do you think that should go for race too?
-
Yes, they certainly do. Otherwise, you're infringing on other people's beliefs and values. You're a hypocrite. You want the freedom to believe and live how you wish, but don't want to allow others the same liberty. You want to force your lifestyle down people's throats. What about other people's civil rights? Funny how it only works one way with you people.
Doesn't that work both ways? Aren't people forcing heterosexual lifestyles on gays by forcing to conform in order to do.business?
Allowing business the right to refuse services to gays opens the door to discrimination on the same as racial discrimination was. This kind of thing.has no place in modern society.
-
(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/lshS_p7kbJA/mqdefault.jpg)
the repubs are becoming the barney fife's of politics :D :D :D
-
Doesn't that work both ways? Aren't people forcing heterosexual lifestyles on gays by forcing to conform in order to do.business?
Allowing business the right to refuse services to gays opens the door to discrimination on the same as racial discrimination was. This kind of thing.has no place in modern society.
Of course it doesn't have a place but that doesn't mean we need laws enacted.
-
Of course it doesn't have a place but that doesn't mean we need laws enacted.
We wouldn't need thousands of laws that are on the books now if people knew to do the right thing. But that's not the case. Left to there own doings we would be back to the middle ages. At the very least segregation, non equality for women, rampant racism, religious persecution..... the list could go on and on.
Lifestyle discrimination has no place in modern society. There are guys that butt fuck each other and have a serious romantic relationship Live and let live. Get over it.
-
We wouldn't need thousands of laws that are on the books now if people knew to do the right thing. But that's not the case. Left to there own doings we would be back to the middle ages. At the very least segregation, non equality for women, rampant racism, religious persecution..... the list could go on and on.
Lifestyle discrimination has no place in modern society. There are guys that butt fuck each other and have a serious romantic relationship Live and let live. Get over it.
Legislating manners is impossible. You might not like it but people should be free to do as they please.
-
nothing to see here just bad manners :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
nothing to see here just bad manners :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I don't see a rational argument here.
-
Legislating manners is impossible. You might not like it but people should be free to do as they please.
Exactly. People should be free to go into any business and not.be subject to discrimination in any form.
Discrimination and manners are completely 2 different things lol
-
Exactly. People should be free to go into any business and not.be subject to discrimination in any form.
Discrimination and manners are completely 2 different things lol
Personal rights should extend to owned businesses. It might not feel right to you but personal freedom trumps all else.
-
I don't see a rational argument here.
Your calling bad manners and discrimination the same lol
-
Personal rights should extend to owned businesses. It might not feel right to you but personal freedom trumps all else.
Any form.of discrimination has no place in modern society as well as the public market place. Be as narrow as you want in your own home. Open a business then you must conform to rules based on a free society. Otherwise we are going backwards.
-
Any form.of discrimination has no place in modern society as well as the public market place. Be as narrow as you want in your own home. Open a business then you must conform to rules based on a free society. Otherwise we are going backwards.
Of course it doesn't. The reality is that any business that decides to discriminate will not stay in business for very long. On the topic specifically, it's important to protect the rights of religious institutions even if they discriminate.
-
Of course it doesn't. The reality is that any business that decides to discriminate will not stay in business for very long. On the topic specifically, it's important to protect the rights of religious institutions even if they discriminate.
Although they share some similarities churches are very different from businesses. About as different as manners and discrimination.
-
Although they share some similarities churches are very different from businesses. About as different as manners and discrimination.
Isn't that the point here? Shouldn't churches have the right to refuse to engage in activity they find immoral?
-
They should have that right.
correct.
and we should still have the right to own slaves [ if we can afford them.]
-
correct.
and we should still have the right to own slaves [ if we can afford them.]
False equivalency. Your analogy doesn't hold water.
-
It should be.
x2
You should be able to refuse your services to anyone for any reason.
perfect example of why this board sucks
the people on the other side of the argument are too stupid to even be worth the time
I stopped reading after this
-
perfect example of why this board sucks
the people on the other side of the argument are too stupid to even be worth the time
I stopped reading after this
As if you're actually trying to have a discussion. All you have to offer are the typical talking points you've read. I doubt you've even given the matter much actual independent thought.
-
As if you're actually trying to have a discussion. All you have to offer are the typical talking points you've read. I doubt you've even given the matter much actual independent thought.
Are you still going on,you've look like a fool for the last two days.tell us more about manners and discrimination and how ther the same.time for you to go eat some mexican food
-
Are you still going on,you've look like a fool for the last two days.tell us more about manners and discrimination and how ther the same.time for you to go eat some mexican food
So weak. By responding this way you are ultimately admitting you've lost
-
So weak. By responding this way you are ultimately admitting you've lost
That's your same comeback you use all the time,it's getting old LOL .now tell about how you think manners and discrimination are the same :D :D :D
-
Are you still going on,you've look like a fool for the last two days.tell us more about manners and discrimination and how ther the same.time for you to go eat some mexican food
it's the same reason I don't discuss politics with my dog
it would just be a waste of time though I suspect my dog is smarter than you
-
it's the same reason I don't discuss politics with my dog
it would just be a waste of time though I suspect my dog is smarter than you
You are obviously becoming upset. Should you take a break from getbig for awhile to cool down.
-
You are obviously becoming upset. Should you take a break from getbig for awhile to cool down.
you're obviously a very poor judge of human emotion
-
you're obviously a very poor judge of human emotion
You know I'm right. When a person starts launching into a hysterical fit of insults you know you've gotten in their heads.
-
You know I'm right. When a person starts launching into a hysterical fit of insults you know you've gotten in their heads.
hysterical fit?
now we're back to my original point that you're too stupid to be worth my time (don't worry though, you're not the only one but just emblematic of most of the right wing posters on this board)
-
hysterical fit?
now we're back to my original point that you're too stupid to be worth my time (don't worry though, you're not the only one but just emblematic of most of the right wing posters on this board)
Yes, a hissy fit like the one you're having here.
-
oh, brother, what a pompous twat
"modern society" where women are "free" to murder the unborn?
fortunately, people like you inevitably die of AIDS good luck with that
I have notice that your default post tactic revolves around name calling and Insults which is the first sign of a weak argument and a even weaker person. It's even more highlighted by your attempt to compare the current debate to something else entirely, I.e. abortion and aids.
How pathetic. Lol
Meanwhile lifestyle discrimination STILL doesn't have any place in modern society. Grow up and get over yourself.
PS. You are like that little kid on "42"in Cincinnati. I challenge you to construct a coherent argument without sounding like 10 year punk kid name calling at the play ground. Give it a try, I know you can do it!
-
Isn't that the point here? Shouldn't churches have the right to refuse to engage in activity they find immoral?
No one is telling churches they should engage in homosexual sex and be required by law to do so.
-
No one is telling churches they should engage in homosexual sex and be required by law to do so.
You're missing the point. You're a mod on this board?
-
You're missing the point. You're a mod on this board?
Am I? So far nearly every argument you provided has been empty
Like for example comparing good manners to discrimination and then business to churches.
Then just now you said churches shouldn't be forced to engage in immoral activity as if something is forcing them to engage in homosexual.sex.
Or maybe you are forgetting churches are made up of forgiven sinners.
Maybe you should take.some time to more clearly make your point using direct wording, because you are not making much sense.
-
Am I? So far nearly every argument you provided has been empty
Like for example comparing good manners to discrimination and then business to churches.
Then just now you said churches shouldn't be forced to engage in immoral activity as if something is forcing them to engage in homosexual.sex.
Or maybe you are forgetting churches are made up of forgiven sinners.
Maybe you should take.some time to more clearly make your point using direct wording, because you are not making much sense.
It's not the sex. I don't know why you keep bringing up homosexual sex in graphic detail. Are you gay?
-
It's not the sex. I don't know why you keep bringing up homosexual sex in graphic detail. Are you gay?
So now that you have been completely closed down, exposed, and left with nothing to say, you have to accuse me of being gay in hopes I go on the defense to distract from your childish debate tactics?
Heheheheheheh. You a funny guy.
PS. No I am not.gay. Are you? (Not that there is anything wrong with that ;D)
-
So now that you have been completely closed down, exposed, and left with nothing to say, you have to accuse me of being gay in hopes I go on the defense to distract from your childish debate tactics?
Heheheheheheh. You a funny guy.
PS. No I am not.gay. Are you? (Not that there is anything wrong with that ;D)
I was only asking because I didn't want to offend you. I didn't accuse, I asked. Being new here, I've found a lot of people on here are gay. Hell you have a guy with AIDS. This is my argument in a nut shell. For example, a church's right to refuse service should be protected by law.
-
I was only asking because I didn't want to offend you. I didn't accuse, I asked. Being new here, I've found a lot of people on here are gay. Hell you have a guy with AIDS. This is my argument in a nut shell. For example, a church's right to refuse service should be protected by law.
The thread is about businesses not churches which are a very different thing altogether.
Next? ;)
-
These laws are going to die. The folks who are steamrolling the ongoing seismic societal shift believe sexual preference trumps the First Amendment, and I think they will win at the end of the day. Going to be a lot of wrangling over this stuff.
Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
By Ben Brumfield and Dana Ford, CNN
Thu February 13, 2014
(CNN) -- Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state.
The politics
The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.
"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.
"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."
Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.
Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.
Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.
"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity," he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.
The details
HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.
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."
Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.
There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.
If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.
It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.
The trend
The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.
Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.
Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/index.html
Reread this please
-
Ok and?
I have been talking about.biz here the whole time. I really don't know about churches. I think I tend to side with the church here in that they shouldn't be forced to.marry someone if.it.goes.against their beliefs.
Sorry for all the periods. Dam kindle fire 7. Lol
-
...
You are to emotionally invested.
C'mon, man! Is English not your native language?
You do know that "to" and "too" are "two" different words, right?
Fer fuck's sake if that kind of shit is too (haha) complicated for you, why the hell would anyone care about your analysis of any-freaking-thing?
If you're not a native English speaker, though, no worries.
-
C'mon, man! Is English not your native language?
You do know that "to" and "too" are "two" different words, right?
Fer fuck's sake if that kind of shit is too (haha) complicated for you, why the hell would anyone care about your analysis of any-freaking-thing?
If you're not a native English speaker, though, no worries.
I've taken up residence in your head. No matter how many times you insult me and say you're done, you come crawling back.
-
Of course it doesn't. The reality is that any business that decides to discriminate will not stay in business for very long. On the topic specifically, it's important to protect the rights of religious institutions even if they discriminate.
The reality is that most of the time you rarely know what you're talking about...and this isn't one of those times, lol.
This Enid, OK restaurant that discriminates against "blacks, guys, and the handicapped" has been in business for 44 years:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-eatery-fire-anti-gay-article-1.1608470 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/oklahoma-eatery-fire-anti-gay-article-1.1608470)
-
I've taken up residence in your head. No matter how many times you insult me and say you're done, you come crawling back.
Props to you for correct use of "you're". U R getting better at using standard English, SouljaBoy.
-
Props to you for correct use of "you're". U R getting better at using standard English, SouljaBoy.
You're obsessed with me. You're definitely the type of guy who has a history of stalking. Am I right? You know you're the one having a fit. You're insulting and ranting and raving on an internet message board. Does that make you feel powerful? Are you done with me yet? I doubt it.
-
You're obsessed with me. You're definitely the type of guy who has a history of stalking. Am I right? You know you're the one having a fit. You're insulting and ranting and raving on an internet message board. Does that make you feel powerful? Are you done with me yet? I doubt it.
A "fit"? Really now? Ranting and raving? You sure are given to hyperbole.
Truth is, you admitted the other day that you were trying to troll me so now, if I see any blatant falsehoods, mistakes, or other inaccuracies in your posts, I will have a little fun by pointing it out when the mood strikes me.
You have a problem with that? Ya seem pretty sensitive for a "StreetSoldier", lol.
BTW, It's not personal (otherwise I'd PM ya), it's so other GB'ers can see what a dim-witted troll you are. And I really haven't noticed any of 'em (of ANY political stripe) coming to your aid...but have noticed that even some of the moderates here have basically called you an idiot.
-
Discrimination is not a civil right.
Discrimination against a sexual preference?
Are you kidding me?
Fags are not a race. Where the hell is the civil rights issue?
How do you idiots dare to compare these fags' agenda with the civil rights fight by blacks in the 1960s?
-
I don't see a rational argument here.
There is none.
These retards on the left, especially the morons from sweden, canada and what ever third world hell hole they are from, actually believe that homos are in the same category as blacks or other minorities.
That EVERYONE has to accept the faggotty lifestyle because if not, you are no better than those who lynched blacks. Civil rights began as a fight against race/color discrimination. Now it's applied to sexual orientation. HEHEHE!
LOL!! So following the libtard logic, all the BLACKS AND HISPANICS who voted years ago against gay marriage in California will be getting their KKK membership cards soon.
-
Discrimination against a sexual preference?
Are you kidding me?
Fags are not a race. Where the hell is the civil rights issue?
How do you idiots dare to compare these fags' agenda with the civil rights fight by blacks in the 1960s?
Spoken like a true fake christain bigot,but that's to be expected
-
That EVERYONE has to accept the faggotty lifestyle because if not, you are no better than those who lynched blacks. Civil rights began as a fight against race/color discrimination. Now it's applied to sexual orientation. HEHEHE!
LOL!! So following the libtard logic, all the BLACKS AND HISPANICS who voted years ago against gay marriage in California will be getting their KKK membership cards soon.
-
Lol
Discrimination against a sexual preference?
Are you kidding me?
Fags are not a race. Where the hell is the civil rights issue?
How do you idiots dare to compare these fags' agenda with the civil rights fight by blacks in the 1960s?
1. Scroll up and see the context of my comment
2. Then look up the definition of the word.
3. Reread it all to make sure you comprehend it correctly
Allowing businesses to discriminate based on lifestyle choices such as gay couples have no place in modern society.
Now, don't get me wrong here. There are instances where LGBT rights have superseded others which I have seen first hand. That's not acceptable either.
-
There is no such thing as discrimination against sexual orientation.
It has always been used to approve the faggotty lifestyle of 3% of abnormal persons in the USA and has made its way to the law by the inmoral and corrupt libtards.
Just because it's in the law doesn't mean its correct. Just like crapcare.
So keep wallowing in your stupidity, ozmo.
-
There is no such thing as discrimination against sexual orientation.
It has always been used to approve the faggotty lifestyle of 3% of abnormal persons in the USA and has made its way to the law by the inmoral and corrupt libtards.
Just because it's in the law doesn't mean its correct. Just like crapcare.
So keep wallowing in your stupidity, ozmo.
I will post the definition for you:
discrimination
[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
So yeah, allowing business to DISCRIMINATE against LGBT should not be permitted in modern society
So now you are batting 0-2 now,
1. Misread context of civil rights/discrimination exchange. (basically got all up in the kool-aid and didn't know what flavor it was)
2. Doesn't know the definition of the word discrimination.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
care to go for a 3rd try Oh brilliant one?
::)
PS: Its people like you, that allowed the DEMs to pass Crap care. So thank you, you ignorant inbred 18th century hateful assholes.
-
I will post the definition for you:
discrimination
[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
So yeah, allowing business to DISCRIMINATE against LGBT should not be permitted in modern society
So now you are batting 0-2 now,
1. Misread context of civil rights/discrimination exchange. (basically got all up in the kool-aid and didn't know what flavor it was)
2. Doesn't know the definition of the word discrimination.
HAHAHAHAHAHAH
car to go for a 3rd try Oh brilliant one?
::)
No one is arguing descrimination isn't wrong.
-
No one is arguing descrimination isn't wrong.
when a business decides they are not going to refuse services to gay couples its DISCRIMINATION.
However, i do agree about the church thing with you.
-
when a business decides they are not going to refuse services to gay couples its DISCRIMINATION.
However, i do agree about the church thing with you.
So what. The consumer has the option to seek services else where.
-
So what. The consumer has the option to seek services else where.
yeah, in theory that sounds good, but in practice all sorts of fucked up things can happen.
That's why they don't allow it with race or gender either.
-
yeah, in theory that sounds good, but in practice all sorts of fucked up things can happen.
That's why they don't allow it with race or gender either.
What can happen? What kind of damage can it cause? Someone's feeling are hurt? Remember were aren't talking about emergency medical care.
-
when a business decides they are not going to refuse services to gay couples its DISCRIMINATION.
However, i do agree about the church thing with you.
I agree that churches should be free to discriminate, too...but if they do, they should no longer qualify for any and all tax breaks that churches usually get.
Can't have the gov't tacitly endorsing discrimination. Wouldn't be right.
-
What can happen? What kind of damage can it cause? Someone's feeling are hurt? Remember were aren't talking about emergency medical care.
Smaller communities with less options. Forms of local monopolies. Non medical urgent needs.
AND of course, STILL, a less civilized society.
Seriously, left to attitudes and view points like the ones you have cited, we would be back to pre-1920's.
I am not interested in going backwards. All these homo-phobes need to get over it.
-
So what. The consumer has the option to seek services else where.
except at one time most of the lunch counters and front seats of buses were not the option. I suppose your idea of the option would be....they could walk or take a bike.
-
except at one time most of the lunch counters and front seats of buses were not the option. I suppose your idea of the option would be....they could walk or take a bike.
Or, another bus company could start up to take up the extra business? Or those peeps could choose something else....?
Typical simplistic view of things based on narrow minded discrimination.
-
except at one time most of the lunch counters and front seats of buses were not the option. I suppose your idea of the option would be....they could walk or take a bike.
Yes. They are free to chose another establishment or perhaps start their own catering to a particular group.
-
So if you can't go to a restaurant you can just start your own LOL let me guess if you can't ride the bus just start your own line :D
-
So if you can't go to a restaurant you can just start your own LOL let me guess if you can't ride the bus just start your own line :D
Bad analogy. A bus is most often public transportation and not individually owned.
-
Yes. They are free to chose another establishment or perhaps start their own catering to a particular group.
again, in theory it seems doable, but in practice its silly. Just use common sense.
-
Bad analogy. A bus is most often public transportation and not individually owned.
Greyhound owned by government?
Airlines?
-
Greyhound owned by government?
Airlines?
Any business associated with public money should not discriminate
-
If you want a meal in his world just start your own restaurant LOL
-
If you want a meal in his world just start your own restaurant LOL
You always have the option to eat somewhere else.
-
I really can't believe anyone thinks it's okay for the government to force private individuals to serve other people against their will.
-
People were against it in the 1860's, 1500's, 1920's etc. Also.
-
1930's....1960's....
-
We discriminate against lifestyle choices all the time. I know a business owner who recently banned smoking on company property. Some business owners refuse to hire smokers period. That's discrimination.
Some employers require their employees to be physically fit. That's discrimination against fat people.
We still have same sex schools, which discriminate against people of the opposite sex.
But regarding this whole GBLT and "gender identity" thing, that train has left the station. The real question is what happens when a lifestyle choice conflicts with a person's religious beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment? Which one prevails?
-
We discriminate against lifestyle choices all the time. I know a business owner who recently banned smoking on company property. Some business owners refuse to hire smokers period. That's discrimination.
Some employers require their employees to be physically fit. That's discrimination against fat people.
We still have same sex schools, which discriminate against people of the opposite sex.
But regarding this whole GBLT and "gender identity" thing, that train has left the station. The real question is what happens when a lifestyle choice conflicts with a person's religious beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment? Which one prevails?
Not religious beliefs, imo.
Real world shit should always trump make-believe shit.
-
Not religious beliefs, imo.
Real world shit should always trump make-believe shit.
And there are lots of people who agree with you that the First Amendment doesn't matter when it comes to GLBT/gender identity.
-
Not religious beliefs, imo.
Real world shit should always trump make-believe shit.
Looks like we have a junior fascist here.
-
We discriminate against lifestyle choices all the time. I know a business owner who recently banned smoking on company property. Some business owners refuse to hire smokers period. That's discrimination.
Some employers require their employees to be physically fit. That's discrimination against fat people.
We still have same sex schools, which discriminate against people of the opposite sex.
But regarding this whole GBLT and "gender identity" thing, that train has left the station. The real question is what happens when a lifestyle choice conflicts with a person's religious beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment? Which one prevails?
it's already been answered several times already,the gay people prevail done deal get over it
-
And there are lots of people who agree with you that the First Amendment doesn't matter when it comes to GLBT/gender identity.
I guess you're alluding to the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment's Religion Establishment Clause that says that the government cannot generally prohibit the exercise of religions, right?
You are distorting the argument (knowingly, probably) when you say people think it "doesn't matter", though. For isn't bigamy and human sacrifice illegal even though some religions would promote that shit?
Are you really old or something? I'm getting a "You kids get off my lawn" vibe from you. (And I'm almost 50!)
-
I guess you're alluding to the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment's Religion Establishment Clause that says that the government cannot generally prohibit the exercise of religions, right?
You are distorting the argument (knowingly, probably) when you say people think it "doesn't matter", though. For isn't bigamy and human sacrifice illegal even though some religions would promote that shit?
Are you really old or something? I'm getting a "You kids get off my lawn" vibe from you. (And I'm almost 50!)
Why did you run to Ron?
-
Why did you run to Ron?
So he contacted you when I used the "Report to Moderator" button after I informed you that supplying a link is a forum rule and you basically told me to FO? That's awesome news.
To directly answer your question: To make this place better.
Anything else you want to know?
-
I guess you're alluding to the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment's Religion Establishment Clause that says that the government cannot generally prohibit the exercise of religions, right?
You are distorting the argument (knowingly, probably) when you say people think it "doesn't matter", though. For isn't bigamy and human sacrifice illegal even though some religions would promote that shit?
Are you really old or something? I'm getting a "You kids get off my lawn" vibe from you. (And I'm almost 50!)
Yes I'm talking about the Free Exercise Clause, and the state equivalents in state constitutions.
You should read up on the Free Exercise Clause. It doesn't allow people to do whatever they want. It doesn't prohibit the government from ever taking a right away. In fact, every right we have is conditional, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as shocking as that might sound).
I was talking specifically about what happens, or should happen, when various rights collide. There is an analysis that people need to think through, which you apparently haven't done. But I understand your knee-jerk response. It's typical.
-
So he contacted you when I used the "Report to Moderator" button after I informed you that supplying a link is a forum rule and you basically told me to FO? That's awesome news.
To directly answer your question: To make this place better.
Anything else you want to know?
What sad person you are. This is further proof that you an overly emotional person and I had a major impact on you. I own a piece of your mind. No one should take you seriously from now on. You're a cry baby.
-
By the way, if you had bothered to read my second post of info you would have seen that all the studies the information came from were listed.
-
By the way, if you had bothered to read my second post of info you would have seen that all the studies the information came from were listed.
Link, SuppossedSoldier, link. Read the relevant rule again.
Do you not understand what a "link" is?
-
Ya think so?
In my mind I did it because I don't know you in person so I couldn't just slap you like a bitch, but you go ahead and pretend to think whatever, OK?
You just proved my point. You don't threaten someone on an internet message board you don't know unless you're a weak minded person. You obviously have anger issues.
-
Whydid you report me to ron :'( ounds like he's in your head :D
-
Whydid you report me to ron :'( ounds like he's in your head :D
I thought it was funny. He did exactly what I thought he would. The guy has mental issues. Ron didn't even tell me who it was but I knew immediately. No sane person threatens someone on a message board.
-
You just proved my point. You don't threaten someone on an internet message board you don't know unless you're a weak minded person. You obviously have anger issues.
Whateva, you are a sore loser.
You are clearly mostly on here not to learn anything or even give opinions most of the time, it seems. Your primary interest is to get in stupid, time-wasting, bitchy little spats with folks.
And I'm not threatening anyone. Just putting a troll in his place is all.
You feel OK, now? Because I'm completely willing to talk to you like a reasonable adult if you can do that, too.
If not, that's OK, too. But abide by the rules, amigo. There are some rules here, ya know.
-
Whateva, you are a sore loser.
You are clearly mostly on here not to learn anything or even give opinions most of the time, it seems. Your primary interest is to get in stupid, time-wasting, bitchy little spats with folks.
And I'm not threatening anyone. Just putting a troll in his place is all.
You feel OK, now? Because I'm completely willing to talk to you like a reasonable adult if you can do that, too.
If not, that's OK, too. But abide by the rules, amigo. There are some rules here, ya know.
No, it's pretty clear you threatened me with violence. You have some serious issues that you need to address.
-
No, it's pretty clear you threatened me with violence.
...
If you think that's true then report me, lol.
Sorry you feel threatened. (Probably happens a lot and has something to do with why you call yourself "StreetSoldier".)
Hope you get over it soon.
And if you are over it already, why did you not just give the link (especially after you knew you were supposed to)?
-
If you think that's true then report me, lol.
Sorry you feel threatened. (Probably happens a lot and has something to do with why you call yourself "StreetSoldier".)
Hope you get over it soon.
And if you are over it already, why did you not just give the link (especially after you knew you were supposed to)?
I did report you. You are obviously an emotionally unstable person.
-
We discriminate against lifestyle choices all the time. I know a business owner who recently banned smoking on company property. Some business owners refuse to hire smokers period. That's discrimination.
Some employers require their employees to be physically fit. That's discrimination against fat people.
We still have same sex schools, which discriminate against people of the opposite sex.
But regarding this whole GBLT and "gender identity" thing, that train has left the station. The real question is what happens when a lifestyle choice conflicts with a person's religious beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment? Which one prevails?
I don't think a religious person should be forced to marry a gay couple if they feel it will go.against their beliefs.
I am still firm on business not being able to discriminate against gay couples or gays.
The smoking comparrison doesn't apply because smoke can cause oders and harm people
Nor does the physically fit part because it might be a requirement of the job. Flight attendants used to have to look and weigh a certain amount. That was decades ago as you know because you travel.
My main part of this discussion centers around businesses refusing services to gay couples such as food, retail, laundry, etc. That shouldn't be allowed in a modern society.
-
I did report you. You are obviously an emotionally unstable person.
Oh, obviously, StreetPsychologist4U.
How long until Ron contacts me, do you think?
-
Oh, obviously, StreetPsychologist4U.
How long until Ron contacts me, do you think?
I don't know. I hope it's soon. Getbig is no place for a lunatic like yourself.
-
I don't know. I hope it's soon. Getbig is no place for a lunatic like yourself.
you've been a member of this site for a whopping 5 weeks and somehow you seem to get dumber with each post that you make
-
you've been a member of this site for a whopping 5 weeks and somehow you seem to get dumber with each post that you make
Still, I bet I won't be as dumb as you are after I've been here as long as you have.
-
We discriminate against lifestyle choices all the time. I know a business owner who recently banned smoking on company property. Some business owners refuse to hire smokers period. That's discrimination.
Some employers require their employees to be physically fit. That's discrimination against fat people.
We still have same sex schools, which discriminate against people of the opposite sex.
But regarding this whole GBLT and "gender identity" thing, that train has left the station. The real question is what happens when a lifestyle choice conflicts with a person's religious beliefs that are protected under the First Amendment? Which one prevails?
Let's save everyone a lot of trouble and give business owners their right to operate their businesses how they see fit.
-
Still, I bet I won't be as dumb as you are after I've been here as long as you have.
you started out dumber than my dog
try digging up
-
you started out dumber than my dog
try digging up
You're terrible at the whole comeback thing. Why is it that when kore stops posting you show up?
-
I don't think a religious person should be forced to marry a gay couple if they feel it will go.against their beliefs.
I am still firm on business not being able to discriminate against gay couples or gays.
The smoking comparrison doesn't apply because smoke can cause oders and harm people
Nor does the physically fit part because it might be a requirement of the job. Flight attendants used to have to look and weigh a certain amount. That was decades ago as you know because you travel.
My main part of this discussion centers around businesses refusing services to gay couples such as food, retail, laundry, etc. That shouldn't be allowed in a modern society.
Where do you draw the line? What about a person who has a bed and breakfast? Should they be able to refuse to rent to someone who practices a lifestyle that conflicts with their religious beliefs?
I think smoking applies, because smoking outside, in the open air, doesn't affect anyone inside the building. And smoking when you're not at work doesn't affect anyone at work. So that is a business regulating the lifestyle choices of employees.
Same with physical appearance. I wasn't really thinking about flight attendants, and I agree (as someone who flies all the time), that there are height/weight/strength requirements for them. I was thinking more about people who work in retail stores other jobs where they prefer "pretty" employees, etc.
Because we have ingrained GLBT/gender identity in our laws all over the country, I think it's a done deal that businesses will not be able to discriminate against them. For all intents and purposes, they're now a "protected class" IMO. That's not really what I'm focusing on. It's how far those protections go, and what happens when those lifestyles choices run into religious beliefs.
We just passed a (totally unconstitutional) law here legalizing homosexual marriage. It's going to be upheld on appeal, but during the "debate," there were factions of people who didn't want any exemptions for religious organizations. They failed, but that's where we are headed.
-
The line is the issue. I don't know about a B & B, what if they are heteral and not married? Is it OK for them to refuse service? What if they are Arabs? Discrimination is discrimination and has no place in modern society.
What if it's a remote gas station?
I just think with the retail and service industry there shouldn't be any.
As for the smoking the issue is rarely outside smoking. The issue is always inside so again, it doesn't really apply.
My ex wife was a flight attendant in the late 80s. It wasn't about being practical. They wanted good looking women. Now, you'll notice bald 40 year old guys.
I have a live and let live attitude. I don't care what other people do long as it doesn't hurt others and I don't/didn't have a problem talking with my kids about stuff like this. They weren't confused any more than I was about stuff growing up.
-
The line is the issue. I don't know about a B & B, what if they are heteral and not married? Is it OK for them to refuse service? What if they are Arabs? Discrimination is discrimination and has no place in modern society.
What if it's a remote gas station?
I just think with the retail and service industry there shouldn't be any.
As for the smoking the issue is rarely outside smoking. The issue is always inside so again, it doesn't really apply.
My ex wife was a flight attendant in the late 80s. It wasn't about being practical. They wanted good looking women. Now, you'll notice bald 40 year old guys.
I have a live and let live attitude. I don't care what other people do long as it doesn't hurt others and I don't/didn't have a problem talking with my kids about stuff like this. They weren't confused any more than I was about stuff growing up.
I think the rules should be different when dealing with a person's home, when the person is actually living there.
It's an overstatement to say "discrimination is discrimination." It's not all the same. For example, if we're talking about a typical secular business, they cannot under any circumstances discriminate on the basis of race, but they can on the basis of disability in some instances (if the person cannot perform the essential job functions). They can in some instances discriminate on the basis of religious practices (by not accommodating a practice). I think GLBT/gender identity should be in the category of "it depends on the situation."
Regarding smoking, I told you about a specific example of a company banning smoking outside. And some companies refuse to hire smokers period (in states where that is legal). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1
Overall, I don't care what people do in their private lives. The problem happens when people try to force their lifestyle down people's throats. I'm going to start a thread about a school sex ed program here that does precisely that.
-
Looks like we have a junior fascist here.
Can you define "fascist"?
(Shit, can you even define "junior"?, lol)
-
Can you define "fascist"?
(Shit, can you even define "junior"?, lol)
Seriously, you're mentally ill. You have a lot of issues you need to work through. Do you take medication? Be honest.
-
Yes I'm talking about the Free Exercise Clause, and the state equivalents in state constitutions.
You should read up on the Free Exercise Clause. It doesn't allow people to do whatever they want. It doesn't prohibit the government from ever taking a right away. In fact, every right we have is conditional, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (as shocking as that might sound).
I was talking specifically about what happens, or should happen, when various rights collide. There is an analysis that people need to think through, which you apparently haven't done. But I understand your knee-jerk response. It's typical.
Actually, BB, you are right.
I have not done any deep thinking about the particular clash of rights when the free exercise of religion is used as the reason for some churches to discriminate against certain groups by not letting them use certain church services. (Other than to be of the opinion that churches that discriminate should no longer receive tax breaks, that is.)
Why would I? -- To me it's comparable to thinking about if Spiderman can beat up Batman -- Only less interesting.
I feel sorry for the folks that are sad they can't go to a certain church, actually.
-
I don't know. I hope it's soon. Getbig is no place for a lunatic like yourself.
'da fuck? Have BEEN to the G&O board, son? lol
-
You're terrible at the whole comeback thing. Why is it that when kore stops posting you show up?
Because I had a conference call at 6pm.
What do I win?
-
'da fuck? Have BEEN to the G&O board, son? lol
Don't dodge the question. I think you do take medication. If you don't, you should. The way you lash out is indicative of someone with a mood disorder.
-
...
Why is it that when kore stops posting you show up?
Derp, I'm in your head, herpa-derp.
-
Derp, I'm in your head, herpa-derp.
I think it's obvious I'm in your head. Are you being treated with medication?
-
I think the rules should be different when dealing with a person's home, when the person is actually living there.
It's an overstatement to say "discrimination is discrimination." It's not all the same. For example, if we're talking about a typical secular business, they cannot under any circumstances discriminate on the basis of race, but they can on the basis of disability in some instances (if the person cannot perform the essential job functions). They can in some instances discriminate on the basis of religious practices (by not accommodating a practice). I think GLBT/gender identity should be in the category of "it depends on the situation."
Regarding smoking, I told you about a specific example of a company banning smoking outside. And some companies refuse to hire smokers period (in states where that is legal). http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1
Overall, I don't care what people do in their private lives. The problem happens when people try to force their lifestyle down people's throats. I'm going to start a thread about a school sex ed program here that does precisely that.
When a person opens their home for business their home also becomes a business and a home. It no longer is solely their home. They have codes and regs to follow in all states.
Other than religious services what other instances should apply concerning LGBT? Not saying there aren't. But when it comes to basic retail and services I don't see any.
Here why your comparison doesn't apply regarding smoking:
We are talking about 2 different things here regarding am taking about refusal of service you are taking about employment.
You are taking about something that has damaging effects. I am talking about for example a gay couple.walking into a ABC store to buy a candy bar and being turned away or worse at a 'remote gas station.
In that instance I am not over stating it when I.say discrimination is discrimination. This type of.thing.has no place in modern.society. I also don't think it's right to refuse employment to a smoker unless there are circumstances that show he could cause harm such a neo-natal ward.
-
Seriously, you're mentally ill. You have a lot of issues you need to work through. Do you take medication? Be honest.
Yes. Various Anabolic steroids. (Are you shocked?)
Occasionally Aromasin (not for a while, though.)
Sometimes Bronkaid.
Does Excedrin count?
That's it.
I'm sure a fair-minded guy like yourself won't have any problems answering the same question, right? What medications do you take?
-
Yes. Various Anabolic steroids. (Are you shocked?)
Occasionally Aromasin (not for a while, though.)
Sometimes Bronkaid.
Does Excedrin count?
That's it.
I'm sure a fair-minded guy like yourself won't have any problems answering the same question, right? What medications do you take?
I don't take any. I'm being totally serious when I say I think you're mental. I imagine you have had run ins with the law on multiple occasions.
-
Don't dodge the question. I think you do take medication. If you don't, you should. The way you lash out is indicative of someone with a mood disorder.
What question am I dodging? You said lunatics don't belong on GetBig.
I'm telling you that there are a number of lunatics (some endearingly so) on the G & O board.
Lash out? You funny.
-
RR and SS, I really don't feel like splitting and moving your threads. I am using a kindle fire HDX 7. It's a pain in the ass. Can you 2 get a room or something? Take it to the v board?
Stay on topic or maybe I.should just start removing threads.... as entertaining as they are ;D
-
I think it's obvious I'm in your head. Are you being treated with medication?
Self-treated. Yes. Are ya posting too fast to do any reading? Is that it?
-
What question am I dodging? You said lunatics don't belong on GetBig.
I'm telling you that there are a number of lunatics (some endearingly so) on the G & O board.
Lash out? You funny.
Lunatics like you.
RR and SS, I really don't feel like splitting and moving your threads. I am using a kindle fire HDX 7. It's a pain in the ass. Can you 2 get a room or something? Take it to the v board?
Stay on topic or maybe I.should just start removing threads.... as entertaining as they are ;D
I will stick to the topic. By the way, this lunatic threatened me. Isn't that against the rules?
-
Actually, BB, you are right.
I have not done any deep thinking about the particular clash of rights when the free exercise of religion is used as the reason for some churches to discriminate against certain groups by not letting them use certain church services. (Other than to be of the opinion that churches that discriminate should no longer receive tax breaks, that is.)
Why would I? -- To me it's comparable to thinking about if Spiderman can beat up Batman -- Only less interesting.
I feel sorry for the folks that are sad they can't go to a certain church, actually.
Where does this happen? You understand there is a difference between using a church for a ceremony and attending a church service?
-
LOL oh kore certainly is a little off, this dude has googled me more times than posted on getbig probably. Seems like a nice enough guy but defintely something off about him.
-
I don't take any. I'm being totally serious when I say I think you're mental. I imagine you have had run ins with the law on multiple occasions.
You take no steroids? Do you even train, then?
And damn, you suck at reading people. (This can't be news to you.)
I'm being totally serious when I tell you that I've never treated for mental illness, never been to jail, never been arrested and had maybe 3 traffic tickets in my life. (No tickets for about 9 years now.)
I served four years in the US Army where I was a 98G (Signal Intelligence Russian Voice Interceptor) when I was in my 20's. Mostly for the college money (not the GI Bill, but something like that).
What kind of soldier did you say you were again, haha? Is "StreetSoldier" a euphemism for "security guard", maybe? (Ain't nothing wrong with working security, btw...unless you call yourself a "StreetSoldier", that is.)
I've trained as a bodybuilder since I was a teenager but competed only once and got 2nd in my class at a National Qualifier when I was 35. (Contra Costa Classic.)
I'm currently a Software QA engineer who makes about 85G/year and have been doing this for going on 10 years now.
So tell me more about myself.
-
RR and SS, I really don't feel like splitting and moving your threads. I am using a kindle fire HDX 7. It's a pain in the ass. Can you 2 get a room or something? Take it to the v board?
Stay on topic or maybe I.should just start removing threads.... as entertaining as they are ;D
Ok, you are right. Sorry, mang.
-
Where does this happen? You understand there is a difference between using a church for a ceremony and attending a church service?
I meant use a church service though I didn't know (as you seem to imply) that churches would deny someone use for some ceremony but be OK with them, say, attending regular services. Do they really do that?
-
I meant use a church service though I didn't know (as you seem to imply) that churches would deny someone use for some ceremony but be OK with them, say, attending regular services. Do they really do that?
You didn't know that a church would prevent two homosexual men from getting married in their church?
-
LOL oh kore certainly is a little off, this dude has googled me more times than posted on getbig probably. Seems like a nice enough guy but defintely something off about him.
Thanks, mang. (I think, lol)
I pretty much hated you at first but now think you are just crazy enough to probably be a cool dude in person.
-
Thanks, mang. (I think, lol)
I pretty much hated you at first but now think you are just crazy enough to probably be a cool dude in person.
Thanks, I think back at ya hahahah
-
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!")
-
You didn't know that a church would prevent two homosexual men from getting married in their church?
You're right; It's a pretty dumb question.
So, after being denied service, what happens if (and I gotta imagine this is rare) the 2 bro's keep attending services?
Would the church do anything, do you think?
-
You're right; It's a pretty dumb question.
So, after being denied service, what happens if (and I gotta imagine this is rare) the 2 bro's keep attending services?
Would the church do anything, do you think?
I don't know.