Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples

[StreetSoldier4U]

Whydid you report me to ron ounds like he's in your head

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.

[RRKore]

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.

[StreetSoldier4U]

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. 

[RRKore]

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)?

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[RRKore]

I did report you.  You are obviously an emotionally unstable person.

Oh, obviously, StreetPsychologist4U.

How long until Ron contacts me, do you think?

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.

[Roger Bacon]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[StreetSoldier4U]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[OzmO]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[RRKore]

Looks like we have a junior fascist here.

Can you define "fascist"? 

(Shit, can you even define "junior"?, lol)

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.

[RRKore]

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.

[RRKore]

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

[RRKore]

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?

[StreetSoldier4U]

'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.  

[RRKore]

...
 Why is it that when kore stops posting you show up?

Derp, I'm in your head, herpa-derp.

[StreetSoldier4U]

Derp, I'm in your head, herpa-derp.

I think it's obvious I'm in your head. Are you being treated with medication?

[OzmO]

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.