Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

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?

None of this is pertinent to the bill under discussion.

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's not unheard of in the law for the sincerity of an alleged religious belief to be adjudicated. I won't say it's routine, but that's only because the sincerity of a religious belief is rarely relevant to a lawsuit.

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.

The law says nothing about what "the majority" may or may not do. It says what individuals and religious entities may do, without fear of legal retribution.

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.

The law can be viewed as drawing a distinction between those sincerely holding a religious belief and those that do not, but I don't see that that's a problem.

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

What reasoning leads you to that conclusion?

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

I'm still not completely understanding this distinction. Do you mean an employee? (Or, at the very least, a worker who provides most or all of his or her services to a single person or entity?)

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.

The bill doesn't say that at all. As it turns out, any added inconvenience will depend on the choice of the person providing a good or service. And, as I continue repeating, the bill does not protect discrimination on the basis of the sexuality of the customer (which isn't to say that such discrimination is otherwise illegal).

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!

I agree with you on this. If same-sex marriage becomes legal in Kansas, then the state would not be permitted to put such a burden on the same-sex couple seeking a license. But I don't think the law permits such a burden. In the face of a fundamental right, it's hard to see what would constitute an "undue hardship" on the state such that it would be excused from granting a license to the couple at all.

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

I'm not making any roundabout legal arguments. I'm explaining what the bill says. To assess the bill as merely an "anti-gay" law is to ignore the full scope and significance of the law, and, moreover, most of the complaints in this thread ignore the limited applicability of the law. The law doesn't protect discrimination against a person on account of the person's sexuality. You can't use this bill to refuse to sell a hamburger to a lesbian. Letting a gay couple stay in your hotel doesn't (in most cases) involve providing a service related to their marriage or celebrating their marriage.

This is jim crow for gays.

Jim Crow laws mandated segregation. This bill does no such thing. Another inapt comparison.

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

It does that, though only if provision of a good or service is related to a marriage or the celebration of a marriage. It also does more, since it isn't restricted to Christians discriminating against homosexuals.

My purpose in asking Valnen what the law does (in addition to avoiding answering a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife style question) was to point out that I've scarcely attempted to defend the bill. Mostly, I've been explaining what the bill says to a series of commenters whose knowledge of the bill can be summed up as, "It's one of the most anti gay laws in America."

 

[Valhelm]

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.

Explicit support for gay marriage is very different from explicit opposition to gay marriage. In 2008 on 55% of young people in Kansas may have been explicitly in favor of gay marriage, but many more might have voted for it in a referendum.

 

[diffusionx]

What if their religion forbids interracial marriage?

The truth is that the same arguments against same-sex marriage today were used against miscegenation yesterday.

 

[Shotgun Kiss]

I can *kind of* understand allowing the owners of a store to refuse service to homosexuals (I don't agree with it, but at least it can be argued that it's their business, and they are free to choose who they serve, and who they don't).

But protecting standard employees from any consequences of refusing service to homosexuals is just fucking wrong. That means tolerant store owners are powerless to do anything about staff that are not only being bigots, but also hurting business.

 

[kingofthedead45]

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

Or people who gamble, or masterbate or steal or commit any sin of any kind. Cause last time I check all sins are the same. Well looks like im moving to Kansas so I don't gotta serve nobody!

 

[Quixzlizx]

Hopefully, one of these laws will eventually be used by the Supreme Court to make sexual orientation a protected class.

 

[diffusionx]

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.

And yet, it is quite reasonable to go to a baker and offer to pay for a cake and end up with a cake. I can say with 100% certainty that I have never gone into a bakery with money and desire to buy a baked good and walked out without one because I happened to draw the wrong employee when I walked in.

It is also quite reasonable to go to the clerk's office and go to the marriage license area and fill out the forms properly and walk away with a marriage license.

This is the only way it makes sense. Things just don't work otherwise. Interjecting individual employees' belief into these things is madness. It's something that racists used to great effect for many years and you're blind if you don't see the parallels. And spare me the "I'm just explaining" crap. We're not idiots.

If you want to do business, open up a shop, take peoples' money, you need to do it with everybody who walks through the door. Excluding arbitrary groups of people due to arbitrary beliefs is not "religious liberty", it is discrimination. If you don't want to bake cakes for gay people, don't bake cakes at all.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

this ...is more than anti-Gay

its anti-whatever you think your religion dont approve of...

 

[Opiate]

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

I think it's worth figuring out, frankly. I don't mean you should agree with them, I mean you should understand them, mostly because in doing so you often understand yourself.

For example, my explanation would be this: the general discrimination against homosexuals in many cultures has not been maintained through logical, rational consensus, but through the sheer power of cultural hegemony. These are rules that exist because that's-the-way-it's-always-been or because it's-just-wrong. Those sorts of rules are held in place effectively through majority rule rather than rational discourse, and most people are subconsciously aware of this even if they don't admit it to others or themselves, consciously.

In short: if the rule you approve of is only in place because that's just the way it is, and not because you can argue it rationally or logically, then your argument evaporates as soon as it isn't the way any longer. In these situations, you'll be highly motivated to keep the rules in place because the entire premise of your argument disappears as soon as the rules go away.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Hopefully, one of these laws will eventually be used by the Supreme Court to make sexual orientation a protected class.

There was an ohio case that stated that or said it was implied by the DOMA decision.

I'll respond to Metaphoreus later.

 

[dantevsninjas]

If your religious beliefs preclude you from treating homosexuals with the basic dignity that any human being deserves, then your religious beliefs should be ridiculed, met with disdain, and tossed aside like the bronze age relics they are, plain and simple.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I'll respond to Metaphoreus later.

Good, because right now you and I are duking it out for the top spot on the list of commenters in this thread.

In fact, if you could break your next response into two or more separate posts, that'd be great. Especially now that I've wasted this post.

 

[Opiate]

It does that, though only if provision of a good or service is related to a marriage or the celebration of a marriage. It also does more, since it isn't restricted to Christians discriminating against homosexuals.

Yes, as stated, it allows Christians to discriminate against married homosexuals.

And it does not, practically, do more. That's why I used the word "practically." Literally, many interracial marriage laws prohibited all types of interracial marriage; practically, they were used exclusively to persecute black/white couples. Literally, sodomy laws could be used to persecute heterosexual couples that engaged in anal sex. Practically, they were used near exclusively to persecute gays for being gay because there were no other laws in place to persecute them with. Literally, intelligent design proponents endorse the concept of "intelligent design" broadly; practically, it's an attempt to get Biblical creationism in to schools.

The notion that this is an equal opportunity law is a thin veneer. Yes, the law theoretically allows (for example) a Hindu to persecute heterosexual couples because they believe heterosexual marriage is against their religion. Practically, that will never, ever happen. Practically, this law will be used 90%+ by Christians and 99% against homosexuals. For the most part, the courts now see through this veneer, which is why nearly every legally literate person in this thread agrees that the law will be struck down as soon as it is enacted.

 

[diffusionx]

Yes, as stated, it allows Christians to discriminate against married homosexuals.

And it does not, practically, do more. That's why I used the word "practically." Literally, many interracial marriage laws prohibited all types of interracial marriage; practically, they were used exclusively to persecute black/white couples. Literally, sodomy laws could be used to persecute heterosexual couples that engaged in anal sex. Practically, they were used near exclusively to persecute gays for being gay because there were no other laws in place to persecute them with. Literally, intelligent design proponents endorse the concept of "intelligent design" broadly; practically, it's an attempt to get Biblical creationism in to schools.

The notion that this is an equal opportunity law is a thin veneer. Yes, the law theoretically allows (for example) a Hindu to persecute heterosexual couples because they believe heterosexual marriage is against their religion. Practically, that will never, ever happen. Practically, this law will be used 90%+ by Christians and 99% against homosexuals. For the most part, the courts now see through this veneer, which is why nearly every legally literate person in this thread agrees that the law will be struck down as soon as it is enacted.

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

 

[Yaboosh]

Yes, as stated, it allows Christians to discriminate against married homosexuals.

And it does not, practically, do more. That's why I used the word "practically." Literally, many interracial marriage laws prohibited all types of interracial marriage; practically, they were used exclusively to persecute black/white couples. Literally, sodomy laws could be used to persecute heterosexual couples that engaged in anal sex. Practically, they were used near exclusively to persecute gays for being gay because there were no other laws in place to persecute them with. Literally, intelligent design proponents endorse the concept of "intelligent design" broadly; practically, it's an attempt to get Biblical creationism in to schools.

The notion that this is an equal opportunity law is a thin veneer. Yes, the law theoretically allows (for example) a Hindu to persecute heterosexual couples because they believe heterosexual marriage is against their religion. Practically, that will never, ever happen. Practically, this law will be used 90%+ by Christians and 99% against homosexuals. For the most part, the courts now see through this veneer, which is why nearly every legally literate person in this thread agrees that the law will be struck down as soon as it is enacted.

Discrimination against gays is not illegal federally and it isn't illegal in Kansas.

Striking down this law and establishing sexuality as a federally protected class would be a large move and is not automatic.


Point being that this law doesn't seem to contradict any federal law, but seems well suited to being the law that leads to sexual preference being added to the list of protected classes. That is far from automatic though.

 

[Opiate]

Discrimination against gays is not illegal federally and it isn't illegal in Kansas.

Striking down this law and establishing sexuality as a federally protected class would be a large move and is not automatic.

You mentioned this before, and I'm not sure why you're insisting on it. It is not at all inconsistent with my position. It seems like you agree with me, but are phrasing this as if you don't. Can you elaborate?

Point being that this law doesn't seem to contradict any federal law, but seems well suited to being the law that leads to sexual preference being added to the list of protected classes. That is far from automatic though.

Ah, I see. Yes, that is possible.

 

[Damaniel]

I think it's worth figuring out, frankly. I don't mean you should agree with them, I mean you should understand them, mostly because in doing so you often understand yourself.

For example, my explanation would be this: the general discrimination against homosexuals in many cultures has not been maintained through logical, rational consensus, but through the sheer power of cultural hegemony. Rules that exist because that's the way it's always been or because it's just wrong. Those sorts of rules are held in place effectively through majority rule, and most people are subconsciously aware of this even if they don't admit it to others or themselves, consciously.

As such, people who hold such values are extremely concerned about keeping the rules in place. In short: if the rule you approve of is only in place because that's just the way it is, and not because you can argue it rationally or logically, then your argument evaporates as soon as it isn't the way it is any longer.

I understand why evangelicals choose to discriminate, but I'll never accept it. This will be (rightfully) struck down at the federal level, some conservatives will whine and grumble about 'second amendment solutions', and then eventually they'll figure out the next way to make life hard for people they don't like - same as it's always been.

(I was never planning to go to Kansas anyway for a ton of reasons, but institutionalized discrimination is yet another one. They can try to argue that it would allow gay people to discriminate against non-gay people, but I find the idea of any group discriminating against any other abhorrent, regardless of who's on what side. Doubly so when they base their feelings on misinterpretations of a 'holy book' that holds no sway with me or a sizable chunk of the rest of the population.)

 

[Earendil]

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

No, I have no political ideologies whatsoever. All I really meant is that although I am heterosexual, and rather enjoy it, I am no man's (or woman's) judge, so it is not my place to impose my beliefs on others. I freely admit that my personal feelings lean toward the morally conservative side, but that does not mean I believe everyone else's should as well. Everyone has free will, and as long as their beliefs do not infringe on the rights of someone else, who am I to say anything? I have known plenty of homosexual people over the years, and I have never had any reason to dislike them.

 

[Dead Man]

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

I really don't like the protected class system. Every group should be protected by default. I know that makes for more ambiguity in the law, but bloody hell, this 'not a protected class, I can discriminate YAY' shit is getting old.

 

[wsoxfan1214]

Is there a way we can remove Kansas, put it ontop of Texas, then push every state from there and east out towards a mega volcano in the middle of the ocean?
Just as a hypothetical.

I assume you mean New Orleans, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Florida and not every single state to the east of that, yes?

 

[Yaboosh]

I really don't like the protected class system. Every group should be protected by default. I know that makes for more ambiguity in the law, but bloody hell, this 'not a protected class, I can discriminate YAY' shit is getting old.

Well it is certainly terrible that sexual preference isn't one of them.

Shouldn't be too much longer though.

 

[Metaphoreus]

And it does not, practically, do more. That's why I used the word "practically." Literally, many interracial marriage laws prohibited all types of interracial marriage; practically, they were used exclusively to persecute black/white couples. Literally, sodomy laws could be used to persecute heterosexual couples that engaged in anal sex. Practically, they were used near exclusively to persecute gays for being gay because there were no other laws in place to persecute them with. Literally, intelligent design proponents endorse the concept of "intelligent design" broadly; practically, it's an attempt to get Biblical creationism in to schools.

The notion that this is an equal opportunity law is a thin veneer. Yes, the law theoretically allows (for example) a Hindu to persecute heterosexual couples because they believe heterosexual marriage is against their religion. Practically, that will never, ever happen. Practically, this law will be used 90%+ by Christians and 99% against homosexuals. For the most part, the courts now see through this veneer, which is why nearly every legally literate person in this thread agrees that the law will be struck down as soon as it is enacted.

Your argument would be an excellent challenge to this bill if courts end up refusing to dismiss lawsuits alleging discrimination against different-sex couples in celebrating their marriage, yet routinely dismiss such lawsuits against Christians discriminating against same-sex couples in the same scenario. Otherwise, you're mistakenly lumping together the discriminatory application of facially neutral mandatory laws ("You shall not . . .") with the straightforward application of a facially neutral permissive law ("You may . . ."). In the former case, the law purports to apply equally to all, but because of government discretion in prosecuting infractions, in fact only applies to a disfavored group. So, with a wink and a nudge, the government claims that the law has changed for all as a result of the enactment, when in fact it has only changed for members of the disfavored class. In the latter case, the law does apply equally to all, even though not all groups will exercise their rights to the same (or any) extent. There's no winking, no nudging, and no discriminatory discretionary enforcement. There is no "thin veneer" of equal opportunity; there is the fact of equal opportunity to perform the acts which are protected by the bill, regardless of whether one takes advantage of that opportunity.

 

[fabricated backlash]

What fucking century is it again?

Yeah I was dumb founded to see my Laptop working in 1514. Seriously, what the hell.

 

[RoadHazard]

Religious people (well, ones like these at least) really are some of the worst people on Earth on the most basic human level. So hateful and intolerant, while simultaneously demanding that everyone should tolerate their fairytale beliefs without question. They spread their hate under the protection of religious freedom, but fuck everyone else's freedom to be treated like human beings.

 

[Earendil]

Religious people (well, ones like these at least) really are some of the worst people on Earth on the most basic human level. So hateful and intolerant, while simultaneously demanding that everyone should tolerate their fairytale beliefs without question. They spread their hate under the protection of religious freedom, but fuck everyone else's freedom to be treated like human beings.

People like this give the rest of us a bad name. Not all religious people are like this.

 

[Wilsongt]

Measure passed the house.

 

[jaxword]

People like this give the rest of us a bad name. Not all religious people are like this.

It's always "others."

 

[devilhawk]

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/feb/13/senate-president-has-concerns-about-gay-marriage-b/

The future of a House-approved bill that says people can cite religious beliefs to deny goods and services to same-sex couples was in doubt Thursday after Senate President Susan Wagle expressed concerns about the measure.

As a national uproar ensued over HB 2453, Wagle, a conservative Republican from Wichita, issued a statement that said she was "concerned about the practical impact of the bill."

Wagle added, "A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage, protect religious institutions, and protect individuals from being forced to violate their personal moral values.

"However, my members also don't condone discrimination. If we cannot find ample common ground to ease legitimate concerns, I believe a majority of my caucus will not support the bill."

Wagle's GOP caucus holds a 32-8 advantage in the Senate. Almost all Democrats oppose the legislation.

Senate President (majority leader) opposes. The bill may just die.

 

[Dead Man]

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2014/feb/13/senate-president-has-concerns-about-gay-marriage-b/

Senate President (majority leader) opposes. The bill may just die.

Good to hear, but this:

Almost all Democrats oppose the legislation.

shits me. Almost all? Weak fuckers.

 

[encephalon]

Their inability to recognize what persecution is and the absurdity of their complexes somehow bother me more than the law does.

 

[daedalius]

My state disgusts me, as usual.

I want to move.

 

[Professor Renegade]

"There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

Spoiler

- Pierre Trudeau

 

[Earendil]

It's always "others."

What's that supposed to mean? Have I said anything in this thread to show or imply I would do the same as these people?

 

[jaxword]

What's that supposed to mean? Have I said anything in this thread to show or imply I would do the same as these people?

It's not about you.

It says no person can be denied equal protection of the law. I think there are numerous anti-discrimination laws and laws guaranteeing access to public accommodations. This law would deprive gays of that right claiming a bigots right to say no based on the free exercise of their religion (BTW no religion says you can't serve gay people to my knowledge) outweights their rights to be served in public accommodations and goods.

Employment Division v. Smith says the first amendment can't be used to violate an otherwise valid law (anti-discrimination) and writing gays out of that deprives them of their 14th amendment protections. Bob Jones University v. United States also clearly state that religious belief isn't good enough for people to be granted exemptions to discriminate

 

[Earendil]

It's not about you.

Every single religious behavior criticism in the history of religious behavior criticism is always the fault of "others". The vocal minority. The ones that always, somehow, make the rest of us look bad, and manage to do so every other day. They're not true scotsman. THEY don't represent my religion, but I do.

Always found it odd that we have so many popes and priests on the internet, each declaring themselves the judge of who is a real member of a religion and who is not.

I understand what you mean, all I am saying is not to judge an entire group of people on the actions of a few. That's like saying all Arabs are evil because Bin Laden killed people.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sorry for taking some time to respond

What reasoning leads you to that conclusion?

I assume your referring to the fact I think this violates the equal protection clause.

Well, it says no person can be denied equal protection of the law. I think there are numerous anti-discrimination laws and laws guaranteeing access to public accommodations. This law would deprive gays of that right claiming a bigots right to say no based on the free exercise of their religion (BTW no religion says you can't serve gay people to my knowledge) outweights their rights to be served in public accommodations and goods.

Employment Division v. Smith says the first amendment can't be used to violate an otherwise valid law (anti-discrimination) and writing gays out of that deprives them of their 14th amendment protections. Bob Jones University v. United States also clearly state that religious belief isn't good enough for people to be granted exemptions to discriminate.

I'm still not completely understanding this distinction. Do you mean an employee? (Or, at the very least, a worker who provides most or all of his or her services to a single person or entity?)

I think a person who runs a more contractual business and isn't open to all comers has a little more leeway in deciding his clientele. Even then I think someone can make a good case he can't use sexuality has a factor.

The bill doesn't say that at all. As it turns out, any added inconvenience will depend on the choice of the person providing a good or service. And, as I continue repeating, the bill does not protect discrimination on the basis of the sexuality of the customer (which isn't to say that such discrimination is otherwise illegal).

Yes it does. From the bill

“related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.”

Giant loophole.

And the bolded. I don't understand what your saying that that person isn't 'the state' so they're not covered by the 14th? They're acting in service of the state.

I agree with you on this. If same-sex marriage becomes legal in Kansas, then the state would not be permitted to put such a burden on the same-sex couple seeking a license. But I don't think the law permits such a burden. In the face of a fundamental right, it's hard to see what would constitute an "undue hardship" on the state such that it would be excused from granting a license to the couple at all.

And undue burden would be to make them do something a straight person would not have to do. Like ask another person to do the same thing. Lets not pretend because the bill is written carefully its aimed at gays. Courts aren't stupid. Even in horrible decisions like McCleskey v. Kemp the court hinted stats can prove violations of rights if you prove bias on the part of officials. I don't think that would be hard

I'm not making any roundabout legal arguments. I'm explaining what the bill says. To assess the bill as merely an "anti-gay" law is to ignore the full scope and significance of the law, and, moreover, most of the complaints in this thread ignore the limited applicability of the law. The law doesn't protect discrimination against a person on account of the person's sexuality. You can't use this bill to refuse to sell a hamburger to a lesbian. Letting a gay couple stay in your hotel doesn't (in most cases) involve providing a service related to their marriage or celebrating their marriage.

You're arguing a legalistic and literalist, very generous reading of the law. Courts see through this stuff and I think you're missing things like being unable to sue and paying the fees of the bigot it creates no ways out for the oppressed.

Jim Crow laws mandated segregation. This bill does no such thing. Another inapt comparison.

It creates second class citizens. Who don't have guaranteed access to the same rights if the person is a bigot.

 

[phosphor112]

Good to hear, but this:

shits me. Almost all? Weak fuckers.

Democrats are the epitome of weak.

 

[Zaphod]

The law can be viewed as drawing a distinction between those sincerely holding a religious belief and those that do not, but I don't see that that's a problem.

A non-religious person is incapable of holding a "sincere religious" belief. Therefore this law is only granting the right of discrimination to a select class of citizen. That is a problem.

 

[leadbelly]

What difference does it make? Are you committing a sin by serving a gay person? I can't see how it has any relevance in that context.

 

[Zaphod]

What difference does it make? Are you committing a sin by serving a gay person? I can't see how it has any relevance in that context.

I would think that as a follower of someone who washed the feet of sinners that not serving gays would be a bigger deal.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

A non-religious person is incapable of holding a "sincere religious" belief. Therefore this law is only granting the right of discrimination to a select class of citizen. That is a problem.

That's a poor argument because there is the free exercise clause. that does only apply to religious people by definition.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

I would think that as a follower of someone who washed the feet of sinners that not serving gays would be a bigger deal.

Bigots have a tendency not to give a fuck about the parts of the bible that tell you to be nice to others. If more people took the Golden Rule to heart, gays wouldn't have had to struggle for their rights for so long in the first place.

 

[leadbelly]

I would think that as a follower of someone who washed the feet of sinners that not serving gays would be a bigger deal.

Yeah. I suppose they would find Jesus' actions disgusting... :s

 

[Earendil]

Yeah. I suppose they would find Jesus' actions disgusting... :s

The Pharisees of Jesus' time accused him of associating with harlots and tax collectors. I see a lot of parallels in this case. My wife works in a children's clothing store. If a gay couple came in to buy clothes for their child, she wouldn't even dream of treating them differently than a heterosexual couple. Just because you don't share a person's lifestyle doesn't give you license to be a bigot.

 

[Zaphod]

That's a poor argument because there is the free exercise clause. that does only apply to religious people by definition.

I would think though that free exercise is typically limited to actions don't unduly interfere with others. Places of worship still have to apply for zoning permissions for example.

My main point though is to point out how ridiculous this law is in singling out a select group that should be allowed special rights to discriminate against a specific group of other citizens.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I would think though that free exercise is typically limited to actions don't unduly interfere with others. Places of worship still have to apply for zoning permissions for example.

My main point though is to point out how ridiculous this law is in singling out a select group that should be allowed special rights to discriminate against a specific group of other citizens.

I don't think the problem that it allows a specific group to discriminate I think the problem is it allows discrimination.

 

[Zaphod]

I don't think the problem that it allows a specific group to discriminate I think the problem is it allows discrimination.

I agree completely, I was just addressing Metaphoreus' legalistic arguments that this law is somehow protecting the freedom of religious citizens to discriminate by pointing out that it is not granting that right to everyone.

Religions do get some special considerations like a church is not taxed, but there are at least options for secular non-profits as well.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Sorry for taking some time to respond

I assume your referring to the fact I think this violates the equal protection clause.

Well, it says no person can be denied equal protection of the law. I think there are numerous anti-discrimination laws and laws guaranteeing access to public accommodations. This law would deprive gays of that right claiming a bigots right to say no based on the free exercise of their religion (BTW no religion says you can't serve gay people to my knowledge) outweights their rights to be served in public accommodations and goods.

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.

Employment Division v. Smith says the first amendment can't be used to violate an otherwise valid law (anti-discrimination) and writing gays out of that deprives them of their 14th amendment protections.

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."

Bob Jones University v. United States also clearly state that religious belief isn't good enough for people to be granted exemptions to discriminate.

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.

Yes it does. From the bill

“related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.”

Giant loophole.

How is that a loophole?

And the bolded. I don't understand what your saying that that person isn't 'the state' so they're not covered by the 14th? They're acting in service of the state.

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.

And undue burden would be to make them do something a straight person would not have to do. Like ask another person to do the same thing. Lets not pretend because the bill is written carefully its aimed at gays. Courts aren't stupid. Even in horrible decisions like McCleskey v. Kemp the court hinted stats can prove violations of rights if you prove bias on the part of officials. I don't think that would be hard

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.

A non-religious person is incapable of holding a "sincere religious" belief. Therefore this law is only granting the right of discrimination to a select class of citizen. That is a problem.

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. And note that this is far from the only law premised on the existence of a religious belief. Why, even the federal government has one or two of those!

As importantly, it's possible for "religious belief" to be read broadly, as encompassing non-religious moral beliefs. In that case, the distinction you're trying to draw just isn't there.

 

[GungHo]

Got to fight the good fight to make sure you get the bigot vote next election

Is you is or is you ain't mah constituency?

And, not that I'm running a contest, but what states still have sodomy laws, if we really want to know what the most anti-gay law is in America? I know that Texas only dropped that within the last couple of decades, but I don't know where that stands in the rest of the country.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Is you is or is you ain't mah constituency?

And, not that I'm running a contest, but what states still have sodomy laws, if we really want to know what the most anti-gay law is in America? I know that Texas only dropped that within the last couple of decades, but I don't know where that stands in the rest of the country.

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