Support NeoGAF

[Zaphod]

That's not true. Nothing prevents a non-religious person from becoming religious. This is similar to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Just because someone doesn't publish a book doesn't mean he or she doesn't have the freedom of the press. The mere fact that a particular person doesn't own a gun doesn't mean he doesn't enjoy the right to keep and bear arms.

None of those groups are provided an opportunity to deny rights or service to another group. Benefits of religious belief in other arenas have equivalent secular beliefs. For example, I don't have to be religious to be a pacifist.

 

[Megadragon15]

Texas still hasn't repealed the statute ruled unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas.

Why would it matter if Texas repealed it or not? It is not a valid legal law anymore.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Why would it matter if Texas repealed it or not? It is not a valid legal law anymore.

It doesn't matter, legally. But it does matter, mathematically, if you're counting states that still have anti-sodomy laws, as GungHo suggested.

 

[ab.aeterno]

As I keep repeating, the bill does not apply only to same-sex couples. And I doubt that waiting thirty seconds for another employee of the clerk would ever be considered an unconstitutional burden on the right to marry.

Of course the letter of the law is crafted in such a way to envelop their naked ambitions in legal language that prevents the law from being transparently discriminatory, to increase the chances of being passed and to avoid a political shitstorm. But let's not pretend that this bill's goal is anything but letting religious people who work from the government to get away with stonewalling gay couples.

Saying "well the bill applies to everyone!" is as true as saying that Russia's new homophobic laws just ban gay propaganda from being given to children, in that's it's the letter of the law as written, but not how it will be/is being enforced or what it's goal is.

It's a semantical argument that's as fundamentally bullshit and intellectually vapid as the argument that "well gay people CAN marry! They have that right like any heterosexual person! They just can't marry each other lololol."

 

[NYCmetsfan]

There are two problems here that you need to address to claim a violation of the EPC. First, the EPC does not mandate that anti-discrimination laws governing private persons be implemented. Kansas could do away with all such laws without running afoul of the Constitution. (Note that the Kansas Constitution may provide differently.) Second, the bill is one of general applicability. It doesn't just apply to Christians discriminating against a same-sex marriage or celebration of marriage. It applies to anyone who declines to provide a good or service related to a marriage or the celebration of marriage on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief.

Yes if Kansas repealed all anti-discrimination laws it could possibility be held constitutional. But you see where that's leading?

And again the fact that it on its face allows for discrimination against straight couples, interracial couples, remaried couples doesn't change the fact its aimed, by the admission and supporters of its authors at gay couples. Courts aren't stupid.

The bill doesn't "write gays out," and doesn't deprive them of their 14th Amendment protections. See above. And here, the First Amendment isn't being claimed as a defense by a person who has violated a generally applicable anti-discrimination law. Instead, the law is being changed so that a person who does an act listed in the bill for the reasons listed doesn't violate an anti-discrimination law. The defense of such a person would be, "What I did was legal," not, "What I did was illegal, but the law I broke violates my right to the free exercise of religion."

There are anti discrimination laws. Equal access laws. This bill writes out gays from the protection of them. Saying someone can ignore them if they hold sincere religious beliefs (which is an absurd standard because again no religion mandates someone can't civilly hand someone a piece of paper) is denying gays protection for those laws.

And your explanation of the law is absurd. Those typically say no one can be denied service based on _____. It gives rights to the person requesting service.

This is how the civil rights act is worded

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Notice the right is given to the person not the employee. There is also no rational basis for this law. Nobody's religious rights are being violated by demanding they serve all.

This is another case with no relevance here. You're not arguing against the proposition that a person can violate a generally applicable law on the basis of the person's right to free exercise of religion. You're arguing against the proposition that a state can enact a law such as the bill being considered in Kansas. Bob Jones University didn't violate the EPC, and the IRS regulations in effect prior to 1970 did not do so, either.

I'm saying a law which violates other protections (right to equal access, anti discrimination) and attempts to deny a minority that right violates the 14th. Bob Jones University is an example of carving out exemptions due to religion not being valid. The law attempts to do that. I'm saying a court would rule the other laws and regulations as the laws which the 14th guarantees equal protection under the laws. I think you can also use the 5th amendments due process guarantee.

How is that a loophole?

"you have a boyfriend"

that's celebrating a similar relationship its a loophole away from just being a bigot towards gay marriage and into people being a bigot against gay in general as a reason to deny them service and goods

The bolded means that the bill does not impose any added inconvenience. If there is inconvenience added, it arises from the choice of the person providing the good or service.

Yes it does. What if nobody in the office doesn't abide by that? Go to another? Its a barrier straights won't face

As I keep repeating, the bill does not apply only to same-sex couples. And I doubt that waiting thirty seconds for another employee of the clerk would ever be considered an unconstitutional burden on the right to marry.

For all intents and purposes it does. Its targeted at them. You claiming it isn't doesn't make it not true.

And I'm glad your OK with bigotry and a lack of equal protection because you've decided its only gonna mean a 30 second delay. Even though it allow allows them not to stay at a hotel, not to be served food, not to have a cake baked for them, etc.

It's a semantical argument that's as fundamentally bullshit and intellectually vapid as the argument that "well gay people CAN marry! They have that right like any heterosexual person! They just can't marry each other lololol."

This is a good counterpoint to his "its not targeted at a person, its targeted at an event"

By his argument he should argue against gay marriage or at least for the right of states to ban it as it doesn't discriminate on sexual orientation but rather an 'event'

 

[Dude Abides]

Of course the letter of the law is crafted in such a way to envelop their naked ambitions in legal language that prevents the law from being transparently discriminatory, to increase the chances of being passed and to avoid a political shitstorm. But let's not pretend that this bill's goal is anything but letting religious people who work from the government to get away with stonewalling gay couples.

Saying "well the bill applies to everyone!" is as true as saying that Russia's new homophobic laws just ban gay propaganda from being given to children, in that's it's the letter of the law as written, but not how it will be/is being enforced or what it's goal is.

It's a semantical argument that's as fundamentally bullshit and intellectually vapid as the argument that "well gay people CAN marry! They have that right like any heterosexual person! They just can't marry each other lololol."

Facial neutrality won't necessarily save a law that is motivated by discriminatory intent in any event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah

 

[Metaphoreus]

Of course the letter of the law is crafted in such a way to envelop their naked ambitions in legal language that prevents the law from being transparently discriminatory, to increase the chances of being passed and to avoid a political shitstorm. But let's not pretend that this bill's goal is anything but letting religious people who work from the government to get away with stonewalling gay couples.

Saying "well the bill applies to everyone!" is as true as saying that Russia's new homophobic laws just ban gay propaganda from being given to children, in that's it's the letter of the law as written, but not how it will be/is being enforced or what it's goal is.

It's a semantical argument that's as fundamentally bullshit and intellectually vapid as the argument that "well gay people CAN marry! They have that right like any heterosexual person! They just can't marry each other lololol."

You're making the same mistake Opiate made.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Facial neutrality won't necessarily save a law that is motivated by discriminatory intent in any event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._City_of_Hialeah

This is why I need to go to law school I always forget cases

 

[Metaphoreus]

This is why I need to go to law school I always forget cases

It doesn't help.

I'll respond to your longer post this evening.

 

[ab.aeterno]

You're making the same mistake Opiate made.

You're making the mistake that I'm disputing what the law says or provides for, instead of impugning the naked motivations behind it. Yes, it is clear the law can be used by anyone towards any marriage, but let's call a spade a fucking spade. Regardless of what the law says, the intent behind it is insultingly obvious: in the face of pending social change, the law is intended to enable opponents to shield their discriminatory beliefs and actions behind the protection of law.

Sure, a gay clerk could try and argue their religious beliefs forbid them from serving a heterosexual couple intending to marry, but let's not insult our intelligence by pretending this was a motivation in drafting the law. It is simply an allowable byproduct of creating the bill to appear less nakedly discriminatory than it intends to be.

 

[Black Mamba]

So disgusting. These people should be ashamed of themselves.