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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.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.
Do you mean libertarian? Because this is pretty much the heart and soul of conservatism.OK, I consider myself fairly conservative, but this is stupid beyond words.
Social conservatism maybe but conservatives can and should support these laws on conservative values.Do you mean libertarian? Because this is pretty much the heart and soul of conservatism.
Kansas is just pissing away taxpayer money on a fight they can't win.
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.
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?
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
So do you believe that you should be able to discriminate based on race or sex, if you claim religious reasons?
Or when people try to use the Free Exercise clause as an excuse to violate the Establishment clauseI 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.
was wondering the same thing, discrimination is discrimination after all.Metaphoreus, why are you putting so much effort into defending bigotry?
Metaphoreus, why are you putting so much effort into defending bigotry?
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.
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?Let me answer your question with a question: what, precisely, does the bill under discussion do?
Let me answer your question with a question: what, precisely, does the bill under discussion do?
Not in our backyard, Dag Nabbit!Practically speaking, it gives Christians the right to discriminate against married homosexual couples in their places of business.
Practically speaking, it gives Christians the right to discriminate against married homosexual couples in their places of business.
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.
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.
14th amendment, this law violates it. If a law says what this says its invalid and isn't enforceableAnd what if the law says you don't in a particular circumstance?
Not incorporated, something like a Personal Assistant or something like that.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?
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.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?
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 peopleDiscrimination based on race or sex is discrimination against a person, not an event or status. The comparison is inapt.
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?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.
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."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.
the last cries of a dying generation and its dead ideas
It's a good comparison cause they're seeking the same thing!I wonder if these people realize that the pilgrims fled not only from BEING persecuted, but also they fled so they COULD persecute.
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.
Sometimes I just like to assume that any US State that doesn't touch an ocean is stuck in the 1950s.
It's our bigoted parents and grandparents who are the problem.
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.
Discrimination based on race or sex is discrimination against a person, not an event or status. The comparison is inapt.
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?
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.
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.
Someday even states like Kansas will be dragged kicking and screaming into the recent past.
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.