Support NeoGAF

[Earendil]

OK, I consider myself fairly conservative, but this is stupid beyond words.

 

[Metaphoreus]

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

The bill violates no one's civil rights. There is no civil right to have the first baker you go to bake a cake for your wedding. There is no civil right to have the first employee in the clerk's office you go to--as opposed to another person in the clerk's office--issue a marriage license. The bill severs state recognition of marriage from individual recognition of marriage--that's all.

As for imposing beliefs, you have it completely backwards. A person doesn't impose his or her beliefs by declining to participate in an activity, based on those beliefs. On the other hand, a person would impose his or her beliefs by mandating that another participate in an activity because the person believes there is nothing wrong with the activity. In other words, the baker doesn't impose his or her beliefs by refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because he or she believes homosexuality is wrong. But the baker would have another's beliefs imposed upon him or her if the baker were forced to ignore his or her own beliefs and act in accordance with those of the other.

 

[Kai Dracon]

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

The Amish make a great comparison in fact. If you want to live within a theocratic society, you *are* free to do so to a large degree. Build your enclave and accept the consequences of not taking part in a plural society of many people with many belief systems.

But it just doesn't work to cry for special, exclusive rights based on something like religion when one is part of a society based on treating everyone with individual freedom to live as they see fit, for themselves. Of course, a lot of people in America think America already is a theocracy and an intrinsically christian nation - for them "freedom of religion" means "nobody can stop christianity".

But no. If you deal with the public you deal with whoever or whatever they happen to be.

The bill violates no one's civil rights. There is no civil right to have the first baker you go to bake a cake for your wedding. There is no civil right to have the first employee in the clerk's office you go to--as opposed to another person in the clerk's office--issue a marriage license. The bill severs state recognition of marriage from individual recognition of marriage--that's all.

So what happens when every clerk in the government office gets together and says "Hey, we don't have to do X! We can all say it's because of religion." That effectively shuts the government down. Does an official then have to come and pick a clerk to have their "religious freedom" violated in order to do their job so the government office can function?

 

[Zaphod]

There is no civil right to have the first employee in the clerk's office you go to--as opposed to another person in the clerk's office--issue a marriage license.

What happens when no clerk will issue the license? If there is that one clerk it would be a mess, perhaps they will have to create a gays only window at the court house.

 

[Yaboosh]

The bill violates no one's civil rights. There is no civil right to have the first baker you go to bake a cake for your wedding. There is no civil right to have the first employee in the clerk's office you go to--as opposed to another person in the clerk's office--issue a marriage license. The bill severs state recognition of marriage from individual recognition of marriage--that's all.

As for imposing beliefs, you have it completely backwards. A person doesn't impose his or her beliefs by declining to participate in an activity, based on those beliefs. On the other hand, a person would impose his or her beliefs by mandating that another participate in an activity because the person believes there is nothing wrong with the activity. In other words, the baker doesn't impose his or her beliefs by refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because he or she believes homosexuality is wrong. But the baker would have another's beliefs imposed upon him or her if the baker were forced to ignore his or her own beliefs and act in accordance with those of the other.

So do you believe that you should be able to discriminate based on race or sex, if you claim religious reasons?

 

[HeySeuss]

What happens when no clerk will issue the license? If there is that one clerk it would be a mess, perhaps they will have to create a gays only window at the court house.

And what happens when only a couple of clerks believe that it's ok to serve gays but chose not to out of peer pressure and potential workplace harassment from the religious bigots?

This is such horseshit. All it does is create segregation under the guise of religion.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The bill violates no one's civil rights. There is no civil right to have the first baker you go to bake a cake for your wedding. There is no civil right to have the first employee in the clerk's office you go to--as opposed to another person in the clerk's office--issue a marriage license. The bill severs state recognition of marriage from individual recognition of marriage--that's all.

As for imposing beliefs, you have it completely backwards. A person doesn't impose his or her beliefs by declining to participate in an activity, based on those beliefs. On the other hand, a person would impose his or her beliefs by mandating that another participate in an activity because the person believes there is nothing wrong with the activity. In other words, the baker doesn't impose his or her beliefs by refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because he or she believes homosexuality is wrong. But the baker would have another's beliefs imposed upon him or her if the baker were forced to ignore his or her own beliefs and act in accordance with those of the other.

No I don't have it wrong. by owning a business or working for the government you have an obligation to serve the public. Or you can make it a private business or not have a business once you make the decision I'm gonna work for the state or open your business to the public you don't get to skirt around laws becuaee you hate gay people.

And yes someone's rights are being violated when your refuse to do your job the right not to be discriminated against because you love a member of the same sex,are a women, not Christian, not Jewish, not white, etc. Your arguing separate but equal. Literally! Ironically this law is being debated in Topeka

 

[Fiktion]

OK, I consider myself fairly conservative, but this is stupid beyond words.

Do you mean libertarian? Because this is pretty much the heart and soul of conservatism.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Do you mean libertarian? Because this is pretty much the heart and soul of conservatism.

Social conservatism maybe but conservatives can and should support these laws on conservative values.

This is a regressive and radical precedent nothing 'conservative' about it.

 

[Duane Cunningham]

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

Yeah, as a resident of Kansas (albeit in the KC metro area where we're constantly embarrassed by everyone west of here), this is the worst part. Just sheer bullshit political theater to impress the farmers, while pissing away taxpayer money and legislative hours.

 

[Zaphod]

And what happens when only a couple of clerks believe that it's ok to serve gays but chose not to out of peer pressure and potential workplace harassment from the religious bigots?

This is such horseshit. All it does is create segregation under the guise of religion.

Pretty much, its a "Freedom to Discriminate" and there is no way around that. They can argue that a little discrimination is ok but they can't say that this won't result in it.

 

[LordCanti]

As a Missourian, I hope the crazy stays on that side of the border. They're already trying to ruin our state with an anti-tax war.

 

[spekkeh]

Huehuehue governor Brownback huehuehue.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So what happens when every clerk in the government office gets together and says "Hey, we don't have to do X! We can all say it's because of religion." That effectively shuts the government down. Does an official then have to come and pick a clerk to have their "religious freedom" violated in order to do their job so the government office can function?

If religion is just a pretense, and the action is not the result of a sincerely held religious belief, then the law is inapplicable. If it is, in fact, the result of a sincerely held religious belief, then "the . . . employer, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer."

No I don't have it wrong. by owning a business or working for the government you have an obligation to serve the public.

And what if the law says you don't in a particular circumstance?

Or you can make it a private business or not have a business once you make the decision I'm gonna work for the state or open your business to the public you don't get to skirt around laws becuaee you hate gay people.

What do you mean the business can be a "private business"? And how is it "skirting around laws" when the laws protect what's being done?

And yes someone's rights are being violated when your refuse to do your job the right not to be discriminated against because you love a member of the same sex,are a women, not Christian, not Jewish, not white, etc. Your arguing separate but equal. Literally! Ironically this law is being debated in Topeka

No such right is at stake here. As I've said repeatedly, the law protects discrimination based on an event (celebration of marriage) or status (marriage), not on any personal characteristics (sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc.). Finally, how do you figure this bill establishes a separate-but-equal regime?

So do you believe that you should be able to discriminate based on race or sex, if you claim religious reasons?

Discrimination based on race or sex is discrimination against a person, not an event or status. The comparison is inapt.

 

[cooljeanius]

I love when people act like the Free Exercise clause is grounds to allow discrimination against a hated group, even though that's never been how its read.

Or when people try to use the Free Exercise clause as an excuse to violate the Establishment clause

 

[Valnen]

Metaphoreus, why are you putting so much effort into defending bigotry?

 

[Gabotron ES]

Metaphoreus, why are you putting so much effort into defending bigotry?

was wondering the same thing, discrimination is discrimination after all.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Metaphoreus, why are you putting so much effort into defending bigotry?

Let me answer your question with a question: what, precisely, does the bill under discussion do?

 

[Archaix]

You know . . . this is largely a sad and pointless law.

If some establishment doesn't want to serve gay people then why do you want to support them anyway? As long as the number of establishments that are bigots is small, this kind of issue can be dealt with using social pressures. But at the time of the civil rights act, there were so many public accommodations establishments that would refuse service to black people that they couldn't even take a car trip without sleeping in their cars and not being able to eat at roadside diners.

You don't have much other option when the establishment you're dealing with is the state. This law applies to government employees.

 

[Jotaka]

Imagine a police officer.

I can't help save your life sir, its against my religion.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Fuck your religious beliefs. You DO NOT Have the right to commit bias crimes against people for qualities which they cannot control and do not have any choice over (like skin color, ethnicity, gender/sex, and sexual preference). Belief in religious dogma (or lack thereof) is a choice.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Let me answer your question with a question: what, precisely, does the bill under discussion do?

Let me answer with a question, why would a majority try to pass a law that specifically targets people of certain sexual orientation, and who in the right mind would defend it? What if a religous interpretation dictates that no women should handle money or any sort of familial affairs without the consent of a male relative?

 

[NewFresh]

I understand this man is dying, but it violates my religious beliefs to help him.

 

[Opiate]

Let me answer your question with a question: what, precisely, does the bill under discussion do?

Practically speaking, it gives Christians the right to discriminate against married homosexual couples in their places of business.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Practically speaking, it gives Christians the right to discriminate against married homosexual couples in their places of business.

Not in our backyard, Dag Nabbit!

 

[Yaboosh]

Practically speaking, it gives Christians the right to discriminate against married homosexual couples in their places of business.

Which they already have the right to do.

 

[Anura]

If religion is just a pretense, and the action is not the result of a sincerely held religious belief, then the law is inapplicable. If it is, in fact, the result of a sincerely held religious belief, then "the . . . employer, in directing the performance of such service, shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer."



And what if the law says you don't in a particular circumstance?



What do you mean the business can be a "private business"? And how is it "skirting around laws" when the laws protect what's being done?



No such right is at stake here. As I've said repeatedly, the law protects discrimination based on an event (celebration of marriage) or status (marriage), not on any personal characteristics (sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc.). Finally, how do you figure this bill establishes a separate-but-equal regime?



Discrimination based on race or sex is discrimination against a person, not an event or status. The comparison is inapt.

For your first point I want to just say that there is no practical way to discern a "Sincerely held religious belief" and trying to is a whole other can of worms.

Furthermore race can still be discriminated with this law with the matter of interracial couples. The law itself was clearly made with discrimination in mind and serves nothing other than to let the majority invalidate the "event" and "status" of a minority.

 

[Zaphod]

For your first point I want to just say that there is no practical way to discern a "Sincerely held religious belief" and trying to is a whole other can of worms.

It also make a distinction between types of citizens and their ability to discriminate. I'm not religious so apparently I would not be granted the right to discriminate under this law.

 

[Kai Dracon]

It also make a distinction between types of citizens and their ability to discriminate. I'm not religious so apparently I would not be granted the right to discriminate under this law.

That's the beauty of it. As it's not practical to prove or disprove someone is authentically religious inside their head, you could claim potent levels of religiosity whenever it suited your desire to discriminate against someone.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And what if the law says you don't in a particular circumstance?

14th amendment, this law violates it. If a law says what this says its invalid and isn't enforceable

What do you mean the business can be a "private business"? And how is it "skirting around laws" when the laws protect what's being done?

Not incorporated, something like a Personal Assistant or something like that.

No such right is at stake here. As I've said repeatedly, the law protects discrimination based on an event (celebration of marriage) or status (marriage), not on any personal characteristics (sex, sexuality, race, religion, etc.). Finally, how do you figure this bill establishes a separate-but-equal regime?

It establishes a separate but equal regime in that it says gay couples won't be served with equal access (they have to wait) or can't use certain businesses but because someone will eventually serve them or there will be a non-discriminatory business (which you seem to think is inevitable in all parts of the state) its ok. They get separate but 'equal' treatment. straight couples won't face the same discrimination.

Sure you can get married buy you have to go to Topeka even if you live in a small on the border with Colorado. Those 450 miles are nothing! No burden on getting a consitutionally guaranteed right!

Discrimination based on race or sex is discrimination against a person, not an event or status. The comparison is inapt.

this is exactly what it is and you know it. you're using roundabout legal arguments to hide the plain truth this is targeted at gay people

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The bill would bar government sanctions when individuals, groups and businesses cite religious beliefs in refusing to recognize a marriage or civil union, or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to a couple. Anti-discrimination lawsuits also would be barred. Individual workers and government employees also would get some protections.

You've been traveling so long and are in the middle of nowhere and there is one hotel you think its ok that they can refuse accommodation? You're starving?
"Screw you, god hates you" BTW you can't sue me because it's my sincere religious believe that god hates you.

This is jim crow for gays.

 

[Joni]

Little Gamers will have to update their recent comic.

 

[Monocle]

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.

Are gay people not part of society? Giving bigots legal protection so they can freely violate other people's rights does, in effect, impose homophobic politicians' inhuman views on everyone. Nice attempt to sanitize the ugly reality of homophobic discrimination with that phrase, "live according to those views."

 

[roflwaffles]

Sometimes I just like to assume that any US State that doesn't touch an ocean is stuck in the 1950s.

 

[kick51]

the last cries of a dying generation and its dead ideas

 

[Yaboosh]

the last cries of a dying generation and its dead ideas

Desperate people who want to be remembered in the same light as George Wallace.

 

[Kunan]

How tired can one get of people crying about religious persecution over their inability to persecute others...

I wonder if these people realize that the pilgrims fled not only from BEING persecuted, but also they fled so they COULD persecute.

It's a good comparison cause they're seeking the same thing!

 

[Twiforce]

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.

As a millennial in Kansas...no. I live in a small town in the middle of the state, and most of the people my age are pretty chill about gay rights. I'd say gay friendly people my own age are more common than those who aren't.

It's our bigoted parents and grandparents who are the problem.

 

[Opiate]

Sometimes I just like to assume that any US State that doesn't touch an ocean is stuck in the 1950s.

Mississippi: progressive firebrand
Vermont: bastion of traditional conservative values

 

[Sigmaah]

I will never understand why ppl give a fuck about other ppls lives when they don't even have anything to do with theirs.

Let them do them, you do you. Stop giving a fuck about what gay ppl do. It's not your concern.

 

[kris.]

It's our bigoted parents and grandparents who are the problem.

exactly. people my age around here are pretty pissed off about this bill, if facebook is any indication. it's all over my news feed.

 

[Snacks the sober sea lion]

No one is violating your rights by holding different beliefs from you. How the hell is this possible? It's so fundamentally hypocritical and broken that you would have to be genuinely stupid to actually believe it makes any sense.

 

[kick51]

I will never understand why ppl give a fuck about other ppls lives when they don't even have anything to do with theirs.

Let them do them, you do you. Stop giving a fuck about what gay ppl do. It's not your concern.

I'm hoping it's a baby boomer thing and that it'll start falling off exponentially with each generation after, as the world gets more interconnected

 

[ivysaur12]

Discrimination based on race or sex is discrimination against a person, not an event or status. The comparison is inapt.

If my sincerely held religious belief is that a marriage between a black man and a white woman is wrong and refuse them service, it is discrimination based off of the skin color of one of the participants of this event. This is illegal for a pretty logical reason: it is racial discrimination by refusing to serve a couple on an interracial relationship. You cannot sever those two concepts and to do so should only be reserved for a paper you write in your first year at Liberty University's law school.

This allows Christians to discriminate on gays and lesbians based off of their sexual orientation. That is the law's effect.

 

[Salmonax]

Someday even states like Kansas will be dragged kicking and screaming into the recent past.

 

[Piggus]

This legislation is simply confusing. Everyone involved in passing this knows it'll get immediately shot down in any higher court. Why would they even begin to put in the ridiculous amount of effort undoubtedly required to pass it in the first place?

Because they're fucking idiots.

My state (Oregon) will decide on (and very likely pass) a same sex marriage law this year but there will also be a measure on the ballot that would allow businesses to turn down same sex couples on religious grounds. I REALLY hope people have enough common decency to shut down homophobes for good.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If my sincerely held religious belief is that a marriage between a black man and a white woman is wrong and refuse them service, it is discrimination based off of the skin color of one of the participants of this event. This is illegal for a pretty logical reason: it is racial discrimination by refusing to serve a couple on an interracial relationship. You cannot sever those two concepts and to do so should only be reserved for a paper you write in your first year at Liberty University's law school.

This allows Christians to discriminate on gays and lesbians based off of their sexual orientation. That is the law's effect.

This made me lol

 

[Yaboosh]

If my sincerely held religious belief is that a marriage between a black man and a white woman is wrong and refuse them service, it is discrimination based off of the skin color of one of the participants of this event. This is illegal for a pretty logical reason: it is racial discrimination by refusing to serve a couple on an interracial relationship. You cannot sever those two concepts and to do so should only be reserved for a paper you write in your first year at Liberty University's law school.

This allows Christians to discriminate on gays and lesbians based off of their sexual orientation. That is the law's effect.

But again, Kansas doesn't classify sexual orientation as a protected class already, so you could already discriminate based on sexual orientation there.

 

[BobTheFork]

Someday even states like Kansas will be dragged kicking and screaming into the recent past.

The more laws they try to pass, the faster that day will come.
That's the only reason I'm ok with them trying this. The only way that bigotry like this can survive is under a rock. Everytime they try to drag their turd-like beliefs into a court, it tends to dry out in the sun.

 

[kess]

As a millennial in Kansas...no. I live in a small town in the middle of the state, and most of the people my age are pretty chill about gay rights. I'd say gay friendly people my own age are more common than those who aren't.

It's our bigoted parents and grandparents who are the problem.

Here's a graph using data from 2008. Things should look a little different now.

The real question is, are voters willing to prioritize gay marriage over any of the wedge issues out there? When something is ensconced in a state constitution like that, it takes extraordinary effort to change it.