Well… at least they are laying their gay-hate cards on the table. You don’t have to go guessing about it. Still, it’s surprising that lawmakers would not be embarrassed about this in 2014. If you are a company with a diverse work force would you want to locate in Kansas? It makes the whole state look backwards.
Just to be clear private businesses can already discriminate and refuse to serve people for being gay in Kansas and many other states. Kansas does have a non-discrimination clause that protects gays from discrimination by the state and it’s agencies but I guess that is too much and the police need to be allowed to refuse to respond to calls from gay people as well.
Kansas? You mean Brownbackistan?
Seriously? it’s 2014
Not in most of Kansas.
I’m in Kansas City, and most of my Republican friends have confessed to me that they are appalled at the turn the Kansas Republican party has taken. When a real estate tycoon tells you that he voted for Obama, you know that the Republican party is near the point of breaking in two.
Haven’t these states figured out that these new laws they pass, get reviewed by the Supreme Court or the circuit court and BINGO! Gay Marriage becomes legal in that state.
I swear those states assemblies must be secretly gay.
No, they just have a wide stance.
Is this bit actually true, or just a misinterpretation of the law? I ask this honestly.
The government employees thing does sound like it could apply to police officers, unless there’s an exclusion. The place I could see it most likely arising is not in refusing to respond to a victim of assault who happened to be gay, because it would be hard to use religion as an excuse for that, but in refusing to allow the assault victim’s partner to visit them in the hospital icu.
How do they know who is gay and who isn’t?
Government-issued badges - pink triangles, most likely.
They tried to pass the same type of law here, thankfully it never made it out of committee.
The second bill that article talks about (SB128) has been scheduled for a committee hearing on February 18th. Hopefully it will meet the same fate.
I don’t think it matters if it gets reviewed by the supreme court in the future or not, we’re in an election cycle and the Republicans that are running are in a fury to prove who has the best conservative credentials. Voting for this law is a conservative badge of honor, but any decision from the Supreme Court will be after this election cycle is complete. Even if the law is overturned, they still have the credentials that they voted for those laws to begin with.
I’m not in Kansas, but it seems that all of the Republican elections are using the same national game plan. Obama is tearing apart traditional values so they’re trying to prove that they’re standing up to him to defend our traditional way of life. It seems that they’ve decided that their poor performance in the last few election cycles is a result of not being conservative enough. I’m utterly shocked that that’s the conclusion they drew but they’ve certainly got their base up in arms. I can’t imagine it working well for them in the general election though.
Is there a link to the bill in question? As far as I cal tell from the article, the only thing this bill does is to protect private citizens (as I interpret “individuals, groups and businesses”) from ‘government sanctionS’ for exercising their own first Amendment rights.
Basically, it seems to be saying “it’s not illegal to be a homophobe”.
Which makes it a stupid bill, because last time I checked, that was already legal.
Unless there’s something in there that says the Government can refuse to serve gay couples, I don’t see that there’s any way to challenge it from a ‘discrimination’ angle…but it ought to be thrown out simply because there’s absolutely no reason for its existence in the first place.
Who is “compelling” anyone in Kansas to help with any weddings, same-sex or otherwise, anyway?
Isnt it kinda in the Bible that gays shouldnt be screwing each other??!
And another thing I dont understand is why do gays wanna get married in churches so bad, when its clearly against the bible??!
The very book that all churches follow.
Just something I been wondering aboot.
Oh, and before you ask, I’m not religious at all. Pretty far from it
The first part of it is that gay people should have exactly the same rights as straight people. If they want to get married in a church then they should have that right. I think individual churches should have a say as well and if they don’t want to allow it then so be it, but a number of churches will allow it before much longer.
The only denominations still vocally opposed to homosexuality are the more conservative evangelical denominations. Most liberal denominations recognize that we’re all sinners and homosexuality is nothing more severe than any of the other sins we do. The Methodist Church, for example, has a policy of “Open Doors, Open Hearts, Open Minds” meaning that everybody is welcome. I’ve not been a regular church goer for a few years now, but when I was there were a fair number of openly gay people around. The music director was openly gay and very popular. This was a church in a major city in Texas.
Recently a Methodist preacher performed a wedding ceremony for his gay son and that caused a pretty big stir, but I don’t think it was genuine outrage. Most people, church leaders included, are well aware that change is imminent. What they fear now is the backlash from being the first to take the plunge.
^^^ Frazzled, thats fine and dandy, but why not let each church choose on their own if they wanna marry gays, instead of having it forced upon them by the government through lawsuits and such??!
If I were gay, I would knock on one church door, ask them to marry me, and if they would not, I would move on to the next gay-friendly church.
Its a bit like the muslim vs Christianity conflict. Many muslim mosques refuse to marry other faiths, why sue them for it?? Its their belief, and I wouldnt wanna infringe on their belief.
So, I would move on to the next church and get married there (if I were gay, which I’m not…LOL)
That’s pretty much how I see it. There are plenty of churches already welcoming to gay people so just use them to get married. The more accepted homosexuality becomes, the more of a non issue gay marriage will be.
Which I suppose makes it sound like I was disagreeing with your initial point of view. The part of your post I was mostly replying to is “why do gay people want to get married in a church” to which, based on my experience when I went to church, is that many gay people are already involved in a church and would like the same opportunities for marriage their straight friends have. We’re not quite there yet because not enough churches are performing ceremonies yet, but I think once the dam is broken a number of churches will allow it.
Thats fine, except the Bible strictly forbids this type of stuff. So I really dont get this, why do gays want to get married in churches so bad, why not just settle for “civil unions” along with its monetary benefits and such??!
Also Frazzled, you’re doing VERY well so far debating this topic without getting all worked up over it. Kudos to you
I think it would be possible to argue based on a stretch from Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States and similar cases. One weakness in that argument is the lack of a federal statute protecting gays from discrimination…
Also think this particular bill is a response to a story reported a few weeks ago from Washington or Oregon about a business owner getting fined for refusing to serve gay customers–but whichever state it was has a state statute prohibiting discrimination against gays.