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

[OzmO]

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? 

[StreetSoldier4U]

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

[OzmO]

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

[RRKore]

...

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.

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.   

[RRKore]

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

[RRKore]

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.

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.

[RRKore]

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.

[dario73]

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?

[dario73]

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.

[blacken700]

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

[dario73]

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.

[OzmO]

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. 

[dario73]

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.

[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.

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.

[OzmO]

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.

[StreetSoldier4U]

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. 

[OzmO]

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.  

[StreetSoldier4U]

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.

[RRKore]

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.

[OzmO]

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.  

[chadstallion]

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.

[OzmO]

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.