# Seriously? it's 2014 - "Kansas House passes bill allowing service refusal to gay couples" **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 13, 2014, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286 "2014-02-13T23:04:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/41 "2014-02-15T13:35:33Z")
**Esco** , I see that you have achieved your goal of [del]t[/del] provoking comment here. I mean, it’s amusing that a person who, in their first comment said they are not religious at all, to now say spirituality is where it’s at. Just declare victory and move on. If it works for the WBC it should work for you. Sorry folks, I will now quit providing fodder for the…provoker. ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/42 "2014-02-15T13:57:44Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > **Esco** , I see that you have achieved your goal of [del]t[/del] provoking comment here. I mean, it’s amusing that a person who, in their first comment said they are not religious at all, to now say spirituality is where it’s at. Just declare victory and move on. If it works for the WBC it should work for you. > > Sorry folks, I will now quit providing fodder for the…provoker Jesus loves you, Baker ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/43 "2014-02-15T13:58:49Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Are they friendly spirits? So long as its vodka, I’m okay with the spirits ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/44 "2014-02-15T15:04:54Z")
> [@susan](#): > > No. The lawsuits have not started flying. Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for 10 years. Again: Separation of church and state. Right, really, when it comes to actual sacramental/doctrinal acts like consecration of marriages, ordinations, etc. any such suit would be a waste of the Court’s time, under the current understanding of the Free Exercise/Separation doctrine. Especially in American religious culture, where schism/apostasy is _not_ considered a problem. Your particular church/congregation won’t perform your ceremony? Change to another one or start your own, it’s the American tradition. That’s an entirely different matter from complaints in regard to secular/lay employment/contracting or to accommodation and services by church\*\*\*-owned\*\*\* or affiliated independent entities, which have existed for a while already on a number of different issues (e.g. the Healthcare Insurance contraception mandate). That there’s the ocassional person saying that if churches won’t accommodate _on everything_ they should lose their tax exemption or something like that? Sure, we even run into some even on these boards, but IMO that’s mostly those who would not mind divesting all church privileges anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/45 "2014-02-15T15:39:51Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Are they friendly spirits? > [@Esco](#): > > So long as its vodka, I’m okay with the spirits I’m sorry, that’s not correct. The correct response is: Friendly? Just listen! ---
**Author:** ![Strinka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/strinka/32/512_2.png) [@Strinka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Strinka)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/46 "2014-02-15T17:04:54Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > Well, it’s not a compromise, because basically nobody is attempting to force churches to marry anybody. > [@Esco](#): > > Err…that will change **very** quickly once (not if) a few churches refuse to marry gay couples > [@Balance](#): > > They’re refusing now, and it’s not changing. > [@susan](#): > > No. Many churches now refuse to marry same-sex couples, including in states that allow same-sex marriage. Again: Separation of church and state. > [@Esco](#): > > LMAO…wait till the lawsuits start flying :eek: Churches are already allowed to not marry whoever they want. Some churches refuse to marry divorcees. Some churches refuse to marry people with different religions. No one considers that a problem because they don’t need to get married in a church. They can go get married in the courthouse, and it will be exactly the same legally. That’s what gays want, and that’s what they’re being denied in states like Kansas. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/47 "2014-02-15T17:53:46Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > ^^^ 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) Churches aren’t being used in the US to perform same sex marriages. Where did you get that idea? ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/48 "2014-02-15T19:04:34Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > 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. There is NO exclusion in the law as-written. Police, EMTs, doctors, and firefighters can all refuse to serve. I’m part of the activist effort in Kansas to stop this bill. There is hope - many in the Senate are appalled at this bill, and it is _possible_ it will never be brought to a vote, or the government and public institutions will be exempted from the law by the time the Senate is done. I don’t know though. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/49 "2014-02-15T19:38:37Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Churches aren’t being used in the US to perform same sex marriages. Where did you get that idea? Crud, was on my phone when I wrote that. Was supposed to be sued, not used. ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/50 "2014-02-15T19:40:18Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Crud, was on my phone when I wrote that. Was supposed to be sued, not used But could they possibly be sued some time in the future?? Same way if a restaurant refuses to serve a black customer (for example) . ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/51 "2014-02-15T19:44:46Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > But could they possibly be sued some time in the future?? > > Same way if a restaurant refuses to serve a black customer (for example) > > . Separation of church and state. They could sue, but they would not win. Have you actually looked into this or ‘just asking questions’? ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/52 "2014-02-15T19:46:23Z")
> [@Antinor01](#): > > Separation of church and state. They could sue, but they would not win. Have you actually looked into this or ‘just asking questions’? Nope, I was just curious. I didnt know it would fall under “separation of church & state”, but I guess it makes sense that it does ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/53 "2014-02-15T19:50:08Z")
That actually raises an interesting point, though. Could a church, a private organization, legally refuse to allow blacks to attend? If not, hooray, but if so, are there any that do so? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/54 "2014-02-15T19:53:04Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > Nope, I was just curious. > > I didnt know it would fall under “separation of church & state”, but I guess it makes sense that it does As mentioned earlier in the thread, it would be the same principle that Catholic churches can refuse to marry divorced couples (some more conservative protestant churches do this as well), only marry their own members, denominations that already won’t marry same sex couples. Hell, there are churches that won’t marry interracial couples. For better or worse, churches are given very wide latitude when it comes to internal affairs. ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/55 "2014-02-15T19:53:44Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > That actually raises an interesting point, though. Could a church, a private organization, legally refuse to allow blacks to attend? If not, hooray, but if so, are there any that do so? I guess if they could theoretically refuse gays based on SOCAS, they could also refuse blacks. But there would be no basis in the Bible to refuse blacks, they could make an argument that there is for gays ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/56 "2014-02-15T20:07:11Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > But there would be no basis in the Bible to refuse blacks, they could make an argument that there is for gays The Bible (particularly the story of Noah’s son Ham) was frequently used to justify treatment of Blacks as second-class citizens in US history. Saying “there’s no basis in the Bible to refuse blacks” ignores a lot of history. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/57 "2014-02-15T20:15:29Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > The Bible (particularly the story of Noah’s son Ham) was frequently used to justify treatment of Blacks as > second-class citizens in US history. Saying “there’s no basis in the Bible to refuse blacks” ignores a lot of history. That was used by the Morman church (until the 1970’s) to exclude blacks from the priesthood, meaning the couldn’t have a ‘celestial marriage’ and were therefore excluded from the top tier of heaven. Just for being black. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/58 "2014-02-15T21:12:33Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > That actually raises an interesting point, though. Could a church, a private organization, legally refuse to allow blacks to attend? If not, hooray, but if so, are there any that do so? There are still golf courses that don’t allow women. The justification is that they are a “private association” and not a “business.” A lot of us don’t like it, but as long as they can provide the fig-leaf of not actually charging admission for providing a service, they get away with it. It’s the “free association” clause of the Constitution. If you’re holding a birthday party for your kid, you can choose to exclude the black kids from his school class. It’d be a small-minded, nasty, racist, ugly thing to do…and perfectly legal and constitutionally protected. If you’re a business, hosting birthday parties for kids – Chuck E Cheese’s, e.g. – this won’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Kansas\_Beekeeper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@Kansas\_Beekeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kansas_Beekeeper)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/59 "2014-02-16T04:58:20Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > There is NO exclusion in the law as-written. Police, EMTs, doctors, and firefighters can all refuse to serve. > > I’m part of the activist effort in Kansas to stop this bill. There is hope - many in the Senate are appalled at this bill, and it is _possible_ it will never be brought to a vote, or the government and public institutions will be exempted from the law by the time the Senate is done. I don’t know though. You are correct Una. There is no exclusion, and the bill’s potential scope is astonishing. Here’s my analysis of the politics: The bill got this far because the whole Kansas House is up for reelection this year, and the conservative Republicans are pandering to their evangelical base to avoid even more conservative primary challenges. Lance Kinzer, who is chair of the House Judiciary committee and seems to be preening himself for a run for Kansas A.G. in 2018, may have written the bill, although I don’t think he’s claimed it publicly. The House also figures, even if the bill gets passed, the courts will immediately enjoin its implementation. Governor Brownback is also up for re-election this year, but his problem is he can’t afford to further alienate moderates and win in the general election, so this bill is the last thing he wants to see on his desk. I’m betting he’s told Senator Wagel to kill it or at least water it down significantly. None of the Kansas Senate is up for re-election this year, and given that voters memories are so short, the Senate will pay no price for watering it down or even killing it. I wonder how much of all this was scripted from the get-go; sort of the Kansas Legislature’s version of Kubuki. ---
**Author:** ![Kansas\_Beekeeper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@Kansas\_Beekeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kansas_Beekeeper)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/60 "2014-02-16T05:01:34Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > . . . > > And Phred’s head exploded a long time ago. As a native Topekan I’ve stood in many a counter picket line, back in the 90’s, that opposed Freddie, and as offensive as he is he’s also so crazy that nothing he says, or said, makes sense. It took me a long time to realize that. > > And now nobody outside of his family has heard or seen of him in a very long time. One of his granddaughters is an RN, and an acquaintance of mine, another RN that knew her in training, says the family needed someone they could trust to help take care of him. > > . . . > > [ There’s also a rumor he’s dead. Buried in the back yard or something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286.md?page=4)