Kansas Legislator pushing anti-gay bill

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,635
12,545
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
Interesting....I do believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to someone if it offends their religious beliefs. God knows the Muslims won't check you out at a grocery store if you have pork products.


http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/
I actually agree with you on businesses. Private business should have the right to refuse anyone they want. But I don't want to hear any of them .....ing when they get called on it and criticized for doing it.

That said, this law goes way farther than that. State workers, medical personal, ambulance drivers, police not having to provide service if they chose not do to religious reasons? No that just ain't right. I'd love to see the reaction of the people behind this bill the first time a Muslim ambulance driver refuses to take a Christian infidel to the hospital.
 

jthomas666

Hall of Fame
Aug 14, 2002
22,587
9,640
287
60
Birmingham & Warner Robins
I actually agree with you on businesses. Private business should have the right to refuse anyone they want. But I don't want to hear any of them .....ing when they get called on it and criticized for doing it.

That said, this law goes way farther than that. State workers, medical personal, ambulance drivers, police not having to provide service if they chose not do to religious reasons? No that just ain't right. I'd love to see the reaction of the people behind this bill the first time a Muslim ambulance driver refuses to take a Christian infidel to the hospital.
I believe the bill targets solely sex/gender issues.

no 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:
This is, of course, Kansas, where several years ago they attempted to redefine science in order to justify teaching intelligent design in biology classes.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,635
12,545
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
I believe the bill targets solely sex/gender issues.
hmm, good point of course this bill does seem to allow the "I thought he was gay" defense which pretty much means you could legally discriminate for any reason


This is, of course, Kansas, where several years ago they attempted to redefine science in order to justify teaching intelligent design in biology classes.
true
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,562
18,322
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
*I actually agree with you on businesses. Private business should have the right to refuse anyone they want. But I don't want to hear any of them .....ing when they get called on it and criticized for doing it.

**That said, this law goes way farther than that. State workers, medical personal, ambulance drivers, police not having to provide service if they chose not do to religious reasons? No that just ain't right. I'd love to see the reaction of the people behind this bill the first time a Muslim ambulance driver refuses to take a Christian infidel to the hospital.
* Agreed. Let the "market" speak on its approval of the practice. Not government.

**Agreed. Any governmental operated agency or agency that receives any type of governmental funds should not be allowed this right.
 

Jon

Hall of Fame
Feb 22, 2002
15,635
12,545
282
Atlanta 'Burbs
and the bill has been killed

I am pleased to report that the Republican-led Kansas Senate decided this would not fly. Senate President Susan Wagle said on Thursday that a majority of the state senators in her party would not vote for the bill. They support “traditional marriage,” Wagle noted, “however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.” Thank you for that line in the sand. It should be obvious, but somehow that was lost on the Kansas House.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/..._senators_admit_it_s_discrimination_kill.html
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,734
9,918
187
I wish there had been a link to the article from a mainstream news site. I don't like reading them from sites that have an obvious agenda, be they left or right wing.

I'm guessing this bill was proposed to protect places like florists and places like that who don't want to cater gay weddings. I understand the argument that social shame could work against people who won't serve someone because they are gay or whatever, but there are also a lot of people who would rush to shop there because they did discriminate.
 

GreatMarch

All-SEC
Dec 10, 2010
1,432
0
0
Birmingham, AL
Wonder why they don't pass a law saying that people don't have to serve adulterers, liars, and those who cheat on their taxes, etc?
Actually, when I owned a restaurant a few years back, I turned away a known lobbyist and a state representative from Birmingham. :smile: True story. Met them in the parking lot and told them we had lost water due to a water main break. They never questioned it and never looked in the windows to see everyone sitting inside at tables eating......
 

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
18,734
9,918
187
Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers. The bill, which the state House of Representatives passed by a 33-27 vote Thursday, now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican and onetime small business owner who vetoed similar legislation last year but has expressed the right of business owners to deny service
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/index.html
 

Nate Harris

All-SEC
Dec 7, 2003
1,518
6
0
Belle Mina, AL
I do believe businesses should have the right to refuse service to someone if it offends their religious beliefs.

This is one of the arguments that segregationists said should've allow them to discriminate against people in an interracial marriage. It is beyond dispute that a number of protestant faiths in the US had been making such religious claims about interracial relationships at least as far back as the early 19th century.

The Supreme Court rejected all that by saying specific animus toward a specific group is not a religious right. They also reached the same conclusion about animus when striking down the Defense of Marriage Act last year. Unless the membership of SCOTUS changes very suddenly and radically, your argument is likely to come up on the losing end.
 
Last edited:

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.