Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

This discriminates against me. My religious beliefs dictate that I cannot serve straight couples.

I doubt that that's a sincerely held religious belief--a prerequisite that many commenters in this thread apparently consider meaningless--but if it were, you wouldn't have to recognize the opposite-sex marriage. That's clear from the bill:

[N]o 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:

(a) 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;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.​

And it's even clear from the article quoted by the OP:

“It has do with marriage,” Brunk said. He said that the bill protects individuals from being forced to do something “that celebrates or solemnizes in some way a marriage, whether it’s a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage.”

“The bill is clear about cutting both ways on that,” Brunk said.

EDIT: I should clarify that it isn't clear that a religious belief that you can't serve opposite-sex couples--or a religious belief that you can't serve same-sex couples--would entitle you to the protections of this bill. The bill specifically limits its applicability to refusing to provide goods or services "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage". A desire to not serve a couple, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, with no relation to marriage or the celebration of a marriage, seems to fall outside the scope of the bill.​

Honestly, you all should be encouraged by this bill. It seems to be designed to exist in a state where same-sex marriages are permitted. Consider section 4(b):

Nothing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be construed to allow any individual or entity, acting under color of state law to perform any marriage prohibited by state law, including, but not limited to, laws relating to plural marriage, incest, consanguinity and marriageable age.

Do you notice any glaring omissions in that list of marriages prohibited by state law? The law appears to take for granted that same-sex marriage will soon be legal in the state of Kansas.

 

[Circle Jerk]

If the liberal-majority California couldn't pass an anti-gay Proposition what in the hell makes Kansas think it can pull it off? The idiocy is amazing.

what

 

[mclem]

I don't see the problem. It is, as you point out, a very honest analogy.

Just not quite the analogy he thinks he's making

 

[witness]

Stop moving backwards! Why the fuck do they care so much about who people sleep with? Does it really matter? How about politicians spend time on shit that actually matters to the everyday lives of the people? I can't wait for millennials to run this fucking country and just see the horror on retired baby boomers faces.

 

[Moff]

dont they divorce either?

 

[BGBW]

Can we please rename Christianity in America to something else.

 

[jerry1594]

Lol good luck with that Kansas. You can't stop the hegemonic homosexual dystopia.

 

[kess]

Stop moving backwards! Why the fuck do they care so much about who people sleep with? Does it really matter? How about politicians spend time on shit that actually matters to the everyday lives of the people? I can't wait for millennials to run this fucking country and just see the horror on retired baby boomers faces.

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of millennials in Kansas are in favor of this shit. If the Supreme Court takes a "states rights" position at this junction, it's going to sustain bigotry in these states for a long time. It's bad enough states like Pennsylvania have statutes against gays, but the midwest states all have constitutional bans unlikely to be repealed by anything less than a supermajority.

 

[Dead Man]

God damn it.

 

[Ravensmash]

Regardless of religious views, is there not a loophole where the employer can terminate the employee on the basis of simply not doing their job?

 

[Woz]

More like Kan'tsas, right?

 

[NuclearSpy]

Regardless of religious views, is there not a loophole where the employer can terminate the employee on the basis of simply not doing their job?

You can be terminated for no reason at all. Basically everywhere employs at an "at will" basis and thats pretty much it. If you are given a reason for your termination, then they were sinply giving you a professional courtesy.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

Pathetic. I often think the gay rights comparison with the civil rights movement is extremely exaggerated, but this law is straight up segregation.

 

[capslock]

Declare Homosexuality to be a new religion. Problem solved.

 

[Monocle]

Can we please rename Christianity in America to something else.

Why? These disgusting bigoted attacks on gay people's rights and dignity are perfectly compatible with Christianity. It wasn't so long ago that the Bible was used to justify slavery, and even more recently, segregation. Christians didn't even need to exercise creative interpretation to do it. It's all right there in the text.

Declare Homosexuality to be a new religion. Problem solved.

Cock worship is already a thing so we might as well make it official.

 

[Moosichu]

Why are people so selective about homosexuality in particular???

http://www.bspcn.com/2009/06/23/11-things-the-bible-bans-but-you-do-anyway/

Choice excerpts:

Leviticus 19:27 reads “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.”

Leviticus 19:19 reads, “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.”

Leviticus 11:10 reads, “But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.”

All the above from Leviticus, which also says.

Leviticus 18:22 reads, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

The only one people can seem to remember....

 

[Valhelm]

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of millennials in Kansas are in favor of this shit. If the Supreme Court takes a "states rights" position at this junction, it's going to sustain bigotry in these states for a long time. It's bad enough states like Pennsylvania have statutes against gays, but the midwest states all have constitutional bans unlikely to be repealed by anything less than a supermajority.

You've never been to Kansas. The majority of people there (at least 80%) are not openly homophobic, and I would be willing to guess that about 60% of the people of Kansas are in favor of gay marriage, but disenfranchised because of gerrymandering.

 

[Mondy]

Religious liberty > Personal liberty apparently.

This is just....Urgh.

 

[Valhelm]

Religious liberty > Personal liberty apparently.

This is just....Urgh.

I'm sure the Kansas GOP will spin this into an issue of personal liberty.

 

[Yagharek]

Dear Kansas,

You know that shit they're doing in Uganda and Russia? Those are not examples to follow. The rest of the civilized world laughs at them for their backwards beliefs, and we'll have to start doing the same to you if you continue to insist on living in the 19th century.


Sincerely,

Everybody who doesn't give a shit about who loves who, regardless of what some 'holy book' supposedly says.

It's funny you should mention Russia and Uganda, because the anti gay laws there were inspired by a US fundamentalist Christian terrorist cunt.

 

[Valhelm]

It's funny you should mention Russia and Uganda, because the anti gay laws there were inspired by a US fundamentalist Christian terrorist cunt.

Real life equivalent of gaf>internet>gaf?

 

[kess]

You've never been to Kansas. The majority of people there (at least 80%) are not openly homophobic, and I would be willing to guess that about 60% of the people of Kansas are in favor of gay marriage, but disenfranchised because of gerrymandering.

They should bring up a referendum then, if possible.

 

[Cowie]

Honestly, you all should be encouraged by this bill. It seems to be designed to exist in a state where same-sex marriages are permitted. Consider section 4(b):



Do you notice any glaring omissions in that list of marriages prohibited by state law? The law appears to take for granted that same-sex marriage will soon be legal in the state of Kansas.

I'm not sure know why I should take "one step forward, two steps back" as encouraging. Allowing gay marriage is great, but if you pass a law specifically allowing discrimination against gay marriage, what's the point?

 

[BGBW]

Why? These disgusting bigoted attacks on gay people's rights and dignity are perfectly compatible with Christianity. It wasn't so long ago that the Bible was used to justify slavery, and even more recently, segregation. Christians didn't even need to exercise creative interpretation to do it. It's all right there in the text.

Because when you have Christian nations like Sweden being very liberal towards homosexuality America's persistence of being so backwards is not doing the rest of Christianity any favours. We already have lots of splits, the most obvious one being protestants and catholics, so we might as well make another one so the rest of the world's Christians don't feel guilty when they read headlines like this one.

 

[HK-47]

Because when you have Christian nations like Sweden being very liberal towards homosexuality America's persistence of being so backwards is not doing the rest of Christianity any favours. We already have lots of splits, the most obvious one being protestants and catholics, so we might as well make another one so the rest of the world's Christians don't feel guilty when they read headlines like this one.

I thought Sweden was one of the most secular western countries?

 

[POWERSPHERE]

How can we be going backwards on this issue?

 

[biggersmaller]

Religious freedoms do not guarantee employment. Just as a Christian may not demand employment at Planned Parenthood as an abortionist while refusing to perform abortions - neither may a bureaucrat remain employed by refusing to process a marriage certificate for John and Pete. This is why gay marriage laws are so important. Religious expression would cover a private business from refusing services to a gay couple, unless discrimination laws disallow that as-well.

 

[genjiZERO]

I thought Sweden was one of the most secular western countries?

I think he means "traditionally Christian" or "culturally Christian". But looking at the demographics 67.5% of the population still belongs to the Church of Sweden.

 

[Camwi]

So depressing, but makes me proud to live in a state like Minnesota.

 

[PuppetSlave]

I think he means "traditionally Christian" or "culturally Christian". But looking at the demographics 67.5% of the population still belongs to the Church of Sweden.

Yes, well and that does not really mean all that much. I am an member but atheist for example and it's the same case with almost everyone I know. We don't really wear our personal religious beliefs out on our sleeves though and it's quite possible some people I know actually are believers. It's just not that big of a deal here. It's no ones business other then your own.

If you are an member of the church you have the right of an church marriage & burial. That a common reason why many stay in the church even though there is no real belief. Traditions are very much beloved here in Sweden.

There are parts in Sweden outside of the bigger cities where religion has a much stronger hold though. Our own bible-belts you could say.

 

[Patryn]

So if a government office is required to provide the service, but the government worker can refuse on religious grounds.... what happens if all the workers refuse on religious grounds? How can the office possibly provide the service without violating the workers' rights in this case?

Also, if someone really wanted to fuck with the writers of this law, they'd find a Muslim worker to stand up and claim that he cannot serve anyone who is not Muslim. Kind of like that one state that passed the law allowing religious charter schools, then freaked the fuck out when an Islamic school had the audacity to apply, because that's not the type of religion they were thinking about when they passed the law. These bigots' brains explode when they discover that they have to defend a Muslim's religious liberty as well.

 

[entremet]

Federalism makes America so weird when it comes to civil rights.

 

[Kinyou]

Cock worship is already a thing so we might as well make it official.

I think I found a prophet

 

[pikablu]

Right to Work laws are similar.

 

[3rdman]

Read this earlier and all I have to say is, bids on how fast this goes to the Supreme Court?

It's kinda amazing how in their zeal to create these laws, they'll open the door to being overturned and legalize the very thing they are trying to ban. LOL.

 

[Pollux]

It's kinda amazing how in their zeal to create these laws, they'll open the door to being overturned and legalize the very thing they are trying to ban. LOL.

Maybe they're actually really for the gay rights movement, and the only way to get it all legalized is to pass the most ridiculous anti-gay law they can think of...

shamaylantwist.jpg

 

[UltraMagnanimous]

All the above from Leviticus, which also says.

Leviticus 18:22 reads, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

Interestingly this has been proven to be a misinterpretation.

It actually means you have to be truthful when a a guy asks if his bum looks big in his new pair of jeans.

 

[n00bsauce87]

I'm almost certain that there is a federal law that trumps this.

How is this not the recreation of the Jim Crow era but to only a minority of business owners?

Straights only service

Gays can walk around the back

How does one even spot out a gay person with a blind eye?

Just all kinds of nope happening here.

 

[TTOOLL]

I keep thinking why people care about others' choices that have ZERO effect in their lives. You wanna kiss other guy? Go ahead, I have nothing to do with it. Why is it so hard for theses morons to fucking think like this?

 

[Yaboosh]

I'm almost certain that there is a federal law that trumps this.

How is this not the recreation of the Jim Crow era but to only a minority of business owners?

Straights only service

Gays can walk around the back

How does one even spot out a gay person with a blind eye?

Just all kinds of nope happening here.

Sexuality is not a federally protected class like sex, religion and race are.

 

[Valnen]

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state? Ridiculous. We shouldn't be making laws that give bigot scum power.

 

[besada]

Kansas is just pissing away taxpayer money on a fight they can't win.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'm not sure know why I should take "one step forward, two steps back" as encouraging. Allowing gay marriage is great, but if you pass a law specifically allowing discrimination against gay marriage, what's the point?

You should be encouraged because the bill takes for granted that same-sex marriage will be legal in Kansas--and probably soon. The fact that the state won't force individuals or religious entities to recognize a same-sex marriage (or any other marriage) doesn't detract from that. You should also be encouraged in that the bill does not seek to impose politicians' personal views on society. Instead, it recognizes that the residents of Kansas hold diverse views on the subject, and offers legal protection to those who attempt to live according to those views. In other words, rather than trying to force all Kansans to live according to the state's (or courts') moral beliefs, the bill seeks to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and religious entities to act in accordance with their own beliefs on the one hand, and the (imminent) legal right of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, on the other.

I keep thinking why people care about others' choices that have ZERO effect in their lives. You wanna kiss other guy? Go ahead, I have nothing to do with it. Why is it so hard for theses morons to fucking think like this?

The purpose of the bill is to make sure that someone who wants nothing to do with it can choose to continue having nothing to do with it, without suffering a legal penalty. So, they are thinking like that.

How does one even spot out a gay person with a blind eye?

Remember that the bill under consideration doesn't permit discrimination against homosexuals (which may or may not be illegal under other law); it permits discrimination against marriages. The bill doesn't extend its protection to a flat refusal to serve a homosexual person.

 

[kris.]

The purpose of the bill is to make sure that someone who wants nothing to do with it can choose to continue having nothing to do with it, without suffering a legal penalty. So, they are thinking like that.

...so legal discrimination

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Regardless of religious views, is there not a loophole where the employer can terminate the employee on the basis of simply not doing their job?

The point of this is to prevent that. To shield bigots from not doing their job in the guise of their religion protecting them.

You don't want to serve gay people? Dont have a business or work for the state.

 

[Metaphoreus]

...so legal discrimination

Most discrimination is legal. And, again, the discrimination protected under this bill is not discrimination against a person, but against an event (celebration of marriage) or status (marriage). And it's not limited to same-sex marriage--it extends to any marriage or similar arrangement.

 

[Mattlikewhoa]

We are living in the year of 2014...

...2014 PEOPLE!!!!

I just can't...

 

[Jag]

Why are people so selective about homosexuality in particular???

Leviticus 11:10 reads, “But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.”

Look it's one thing to be anti-gay, but don't get between me and my lobster!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Most discrimination is legal. And, again, the discrimination protected under this bill is not discrimination against a person, but against an event (celebration of marriage) or status (marriage). And it's not limited to same-sex marriage--it extends to any marriage or similar arrangement.

Would someone not serving blacks or interracial marriage because they hold sincere religious believe be OK to protect? What about caltholics who don't recognize divorce or marriage outside the church done as a sacrament?

Nobody is forcing anyone to change their religion or go against their religion. The fact you keep saying this is wrong. What is happening is that in America people have certain civil rights and among them is civil marriage. Nobody is forcing anyone to violate their bigoted beliefs on marriage they're saying you can use it to deny CIVIL secular rights of others. This is an attempt to mix the two and codeify the religiousness of civil law many of these homophobes want. This is a secular country and recognizing civil same sex marriage violates nobodies rights unless they withdraw from civil society completely as groups like the Amish do.

These people don't want to exit civil society and practicie their sincere beliefes they want to impose their beliefes on civil society luckily he have this thing called the constitution

 

[kris.]

Most discrimination is legal. And, again, the discrimination protected under this bill is not discrimination against a person, but against an event (celebration of marriage) or status (marriage). And it's not limited to same-sex marriage--it extends to any marriage or similar arrangement.

sam brownback is that you???