# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![Melchior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Melchior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melchior)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/81 "2014-02-24T18:50:23Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Why? In addition to being a really specious analogy, what is the benefit of going from “you’re probably not the target market, but whatever” to “YOU SHALL NOT ENTER,” except to make a hateful statement? Why is it necessarily ‘hateful’? Is it ‘hateful’ when you go to Walmart and not to some other store? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/82 "2014-02-24T19:08:09Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > 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. This bill is destined for the trash heap, in my view – it seems to run afoul of the rationale expressed by the Supreme Court in _Romer_. BUT – while I agree the bill is fatally flawed and ultimately wrong, I am not moved to make up stuff about it to make it seem even MORE wrong. **boytyperanma** : an examination of the bill’s text proves that the statement you post above is factually inaccurate. HB2453 Sec. 1(a) lays out the scope of the bill: entities, including governmental agencies, are not required to provide any “…services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges…” relating to the “…celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement…” The bill further provides, in Sec. 2(d), that if any non-religious employer has an employee that invokes the protection described above – that is, if you work for a company and don’t want to deal with the scary gay people lest you catch the gay – the company is obligated to find someone else to help you, provided it can do so without undue hardship. So the bill’s reach definitely does not extend to police responding to calls, because that’s not a “…celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement…” It does reach clerks who can’t issue marriage licenses, and it immunizes bridal shop employees that don’t want to make cakes with two grooms. But it has no effect on police response. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/83 "2014-02-24T19:09:15Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > I have not read the statute(s). If any of them single out homosexuality or SSM as the only (or primary) protected reason for refusing service, then I believe that is wrong. They do – which is what makes them invalid under _Romer_ (in my opinion). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/84 "2014-02-24T19:12:06Z")
> [@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. **Una** , i agree the bill is a wrong thing, and I further agree that it’s unconstitutional. But I do not agree that the bill’s language includes police, EMTs, doctors, or firefighters, because the scope of the bill, in Section 1(a), limits its reach to marriage. Can you explain why you disagree with this analysis? ---
**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 24, 2014, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/85 "2014-02-24T20:21:23Z")
> [@Melchior](#): > > Why is it necessarily ‘hateful’? Is it ‘hateful’ when you go to Walmart and not to some other store? Well, yes, but that’s because it’s Walmart. “We don’t want your kind” is pretty hateful. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/86 "2014-02-24T20:24:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They do – which is what makes them invalid under _Romer_ (in my opinion). Does it? Not sure if your editing clouds it a bit, but the part your quoted indicates “”…celebration of, any marriage,…" that would seem to include traditional and non-traditional couplings. The intent is pretty obvious, but the law as quoted seems non-discriminatory. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/87 "2014-02-24T20:58:42Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > Does it? Not sure if your editing clouds it a bit, but the part your quoted indicates “”…celebration of, any marriage,…" that would seem to include traditional and non-traditional couplings. The intent is pretty obvious, but the law as quoted seems non-discriminatory. True, the law on its face is neutral, and would theoretically protect the hypothetical marriage photographer who was offended at having to take pictures of a straight couple’s wedding. But since there aren’t many such people, it seems clear that any other interpretation OTHER than an animus towards same-sex marriages would be “rejected as implausible” (quoting Romer’s headnotes). What kind of business would a wedding photographer possibly hope to gain in a state that does not permit same-sex marriage, if not opposite-sex marriage assignments? The ultimate effect of the law is to permit same-sex marriages or civil unions, and only those such, to be covered by the immunity clause of HB2453. I suppose an argument might be made that Romer turned on the sweeping nature of the protections eviscerated by Colorado’s Amendment 2, and that Kansas’ change is of more modest bent, and thus outside the ambit of Romer. I don’t know that I’d buy it, but that’s at least something those supporting the law might use for its defense. ETA: to avoid my editing having even the slightest possibility of eliding meaning, here is the complete text of Section 1: > [@Kansas HB 2453](#): > > AN ACT concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage. > > Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: > > Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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: > > (a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; > > (b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or > > (c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/88 "2014-02-24T21:11:51Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > Religious institutions are not compelled in any way to perform marriages that c onflict with their dogma. This has probably been pointed out plenty but it can’t hurt to repeat it. When my wife and I were looking for a place to get married we tried a few churches (because most places charge to use their facilities, churches don’t usually.) They all turned us down because we were not member of those churches. Pefectly fair in my opinion and, as far as I can tell, no gay people are trying to force churches to open their facilities to non-members. The churches should have open their doors to any and all, IMO, since they get such nice tax breaks, but that’s another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/89 "2014-02-24T21:12:05Z")
There are similar bills being pushed in 33 states total, apparently. The conservative hate machine is on the hardline offensive, apparently aware they’re getting their asses kicked by people who aren’t fucking monsters. The groups responsible helped push for the anti-gay laws in Russia, too. Expect this to be in the news for a while. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/90 "2014-02-24T21:39:51Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > The churches should have open their doors to any and all, IMO, since they get such nice tax breaks, but that’s another discussion. In fairness, churches generally ARE open to any and all. If you choose to attend services at a local church, 99.99% of them will welcome you with open arms. That’s part of their recruitment effort. Whether they go through the rigamarole of providing you with a service **that has a marginal cost to it** - like performing your wedding - is quite something different, and I think it’s fair of them to maybe insist you be a member of their religion for them to spend their time performing religious ritual at your behest. The church’s actual members, of course, are prevailed upon to financially support the church in other ways. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/91 "2014-02-24T21:42:05Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > The Kansas Senate has refused to consider the bill - [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/us/politics/in-kansas-right-joins-left-to-halt-bill-on-gays.html?\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/us/politics/in-kansas-right-joins-left-to-halt-bill-on-gays.html?_r=0) And that should be the end of it. Good. Although I again voice my opposition to the apparent belief that since the bill was bad, any attack on it, factual or not, is perfectly justified. This bill was (in my opinion) contrary to established federal decisional law, and would have created an uncertain legal framework that required businesses to spend money to work around a recalcitrant employee and determine how much extra expenditure constituted “undue hardship.” A really poor policy choice, even apart from the obvious animus towards gays. But it in no way meant that police officers could refuse to assist gay people who called for help. And saying stuff like that is not excused by how much you really really really didn’t want the bill to pass. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 24, 2014, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/92 "2014-02-24T22:06:10Z")
It is not “the end of it”, at least not as long as the fundamentalist christian wackos continue to push their agenda in the majority of other states at the same time. Also, people within the government houses that the bill is being passed in are claiming it is to be read as: > [@](#): > > (a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; > > provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; > > or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the “related to marriage” was meant to apply to services, would not the comma after “employement benefits” be a semicolon? That is, as written, each section is one distinct group. You’re also spending your time here attacking people who are interpreting the bill in a way that I think is a valid reading - especially as the bill **specifically claims** it should be construed in favor of a “broad protection”, and news sources and politicians are backing up the “police can tell you you’re SOL” part. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/93 "2014-02-25T00:27:14Z")
> [@Baker](#): > > And a similar bill has gone all the way to the governor in Arizona. > > [Ariz. Bill Decried As License to Discriminate](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ariz-bill-decried-license-discriminate-n35081) A pizzeria in Tucson has put a sign in its window that says, “We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators.” > **[Arizona Pizzeria Protests Anti-Gay Bill By Refusing To Serve Lawmakers](https://time.com/9317/arizona-pizzeria-protests-anti-gay-bill/)** > > Rocco's Little Chicago Pizzeria in Tucson reserved the right to "refuse service to Arizona legislators" ---
**Author:** ![P-man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/p-man/32/3606_2.png) [@P-man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/P-man)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/94 "2014-02-25T00:47:51Z")
> [@Doctor\_Jackson](#): > > I think the legislature(s) are going about this the wrong way, but there is a potentially sticky underlying issue - how far must a private business owner go in violation of their own morals/beliefs? > > What if I walked into a black owned bakery and ordered a cake with a burning cross topper? Or a Jewish owned bakery and ordered a cake celebrating the holocaust? Should the owners be legally compelled to serve me? > > I have not read the statute(s). If any of them single out homosexuality or SSM as the only (or primary) protected reason for refusing service, then I believe that is wrong. A government should not, however, have the right to dictate that a business must serve every request that comes in. Where is the balance? I really don’t know. I do know it is very difficult to legislate without creating openings for unintended consequences. A bakery can probably refuse to make any kind of cake. It just can’t refuse to serve anyone. If a KKK member wants a dozen cupcakes, the bakery has to serve them. If someone wants a cake in the shape of, say, a pair of breasts, the bakery can say no way. ---
**Author:** ![McDeath\_the\_Mad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a3d4f5/32.png) [@McDeath\_the\_Mad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/McDeath_the_Mad)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/95 "2014-02-25T02:18:51Z")
As an outsider from Canada looking at this, I have to shake my head. This is just another example of how broken the US Government system is. There seems to be a lack of common sense, and 99.9% of all legislation and laws that pass are backed by special interest groups and lobbyists. He who has the most money gets their way. This is why a relatively small special interest group (the NRA) with deep pockets dictates gun control laws. This is why in Texas, none of the school books are allowed to teach evolution, strictly creationism. Here you have rich white Republicans who don’t like gay people. MtM ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/96 "2014-02-25T03:03:03Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > It is not “the end of it”, at least not as long as the fundamentalist christian wackos continue to push their agenda in the majority of other states at the same time. > > Also, people within the government houses that the bill is being passed in are claiming it is to be read as: > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but if the “related to marriage” was meant to apply to services, would not the comma after “employement benefits” be a semicolon? That is, as written, each section is one distinct group. > > You’re also spending your time here attacking people who are interpreting the bill in a way that I think is a valid reading - especially as the bill **specifically claims** it should be construed in favor of a “broad protection”, and news sources and politicians are backing up the “police can tell you you’re SOL” part. You are wrong. Any of those news sources or politicians fairly described as neutral observers on the issues? Can you explain what rules of statutory construction make you think this is a valid reading? ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/97 "2014-02-25T03:35:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You are wrong. > > Any of those news sources or politicians fairly described as neutral observers on the issues? > > Can you explain what rules of statutory construction make you think this is a valid reading? There is no sch thing as a “neutral observer” on this issue. And you, instead of seeing if people were reading it wrong, had been told wrong, or you were wrong, instead chose to _outright attack_ others with this quote: > [@](#): > > Although I again voice my opposition to the apparent belief that since the bill was bad, any attack on it, factual or not, is perfectly justified. You are being a total jerk, strawmanning others… for what? Oh, so you get to attack a bunch of LGBT people and feel better about yourself, supposedly? Hey, if you get to make up motivations, I can too… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/98 "2014-02-25T14:08:58Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > There is no sch thing as a “neutral observer” on this issue. Really? Why not? There are plenty of people who are trained in legal analysis and who don’t favor the passage of the bill for reasons having nothing to do with any belief that it would permit firefighters or police to fail to assist gay persons in need. > [@](#): > > And you, instead of seeing if people were reading it wrong, had been told wrong, or you were wrong, instead chose to _outright attack_ others with this quote: I don’t agree I’m being a jerk – indeed, since being a jerk is perhaps the cardinal sin of the SDMB, I’m sure a moderator would have stepped in after you reported the post – which I assume you did, since…being a jerk is perhaps the cardinal sin of the SDMB, yes? There is very little wiggle room on this question – it’s not a close question at all. HB2453’s _title_ is “Protecting religious freedom regarding marriage,” and Section 1 of its text clearly lays out the scope of the proposed legislation: > [@](#): > > AN ACT concerning religious freedoms **with respect to marriage**. > > Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: > > Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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: > > (a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil > union or similar arrangement; > > (b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or > > (c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid (emphasis added) There’s simply no honest way to look at that text and think that it would be held to permit police, EMTs, or firefighters to refuse a call for assistance from gay people. Statues are read _in pari materia_, harmonizing their sections and giving effect to each. The idea that this would reach anything BESIDES marriage/civil unions just isn’t there, and anyone who reads that text can see it. This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this tactic used. In 2006, Virginia voters debated an amendment to their state constitution that would forbid same-sex marriage. One argument floated here (and elsewhere) against adoption of the amendment was that it would erase police ability to respond to domestic violence complaints from unmarried couples, gay or straight. This claim was equally unfounded. And the people arguing for its truth were happy to say things like: > [@Defense of Marriage in Virginia](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-of-marriage-in-virginia/378024/17): > > Here’s the thing. The amendment does not just affect homosexual couples. It also would have a pretty big affect on hetersexual, unmarried couples. I attended a few meetings of the Vote No committee here at my college, and this is how it was explained to me: > > Let’s say that Bob and Sue had, for whatever reason, never wanted to get married, but they have a civil union. There are some companies (I believe the Sallie May Foundation is one of them, but I’m not positive) that do give benefits to their employee’s partner in a relationship like that. These places would no longer be allowed to do so, so they might actually move to another state. > > Now, let’s talk about Dave and Alice, who are not married but living together and have been doing so for many years. If Dave physically abuses Alice, it would not be domestic violence, it would be battery, which is a lesser charge. Thus, Dave would face fewer penalties for beating up the woman he’s been living with for years than he would have had they been married. Unless you’re married or related to a person, legally, you’d beconsidered no more than strangers on the street. Those statements were utterly untrue: > [@Defense of Marriage in Virginia](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/defense-of-marriage-in-virginia/378024/21): > > This is not true. Regardless of whether this amendment passes or not, civil unions have already been banned in Virginia as of 2004. This is based on ignorance of existing law. This amendment will “merely” turn an existing act into state constitution. > > This is also not true, according to [Virginia Code 18.2-57.2](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-57.2), Virginia defines what most states call domestic violence as “assault and battery against a family or househould member”. A “family or household member” is defined in [Virginia Code 16.1-228](http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+16.1-228) which includes, among the obvious family and spouse, “any individual who cohabits or who, within 12 months, cohabited with the person”. Thus, this law seems to apply equally to abusing a spouse, a live-in girlfriend, a roommate, or a live-in homosexual partner. Hence, this amendment will have no affect on this law. This website is about fighting ignorance, and a big part of that is skepticism. A skeptic should be especially skeptical about those claims that he agrees with. There is a natural tendency to hear a claim you oppose and question its truth, to dig tenaciously to find some way to disprove it…but to accept without any real investigation claims that are consistent with your views. That’s a very poor approach. In Feynman’s e Caltech commencement address in 1974, he explains this concept very well: > [@](#): > > That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition. > > In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. That’s the kind of discourse we ought to be aiming for here. Your defense seems to be precisely what I suggested above: it’s OK to get it wrong, if you really really don’t like the law and it’s a really really bad law. It’s not, though. The bill is likely unconstitutional, and even if it weren’t it’s a terrible idea. But it doesn’t legalize arson; it doesn’t permit hunting of gay people as though they were buffalo; it doesn’t contribute to carbon output in a meaningful way; it doesn’t cancel _Firefly_. And it doesn’t affect police, fire, or EMT response to a gay person in need of that assistance. It simply doesn’t, and there’s no defense for claiming otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/99 "2014-02-25T14:23:39Z")
> [@P-man](#): > > A bakery can probably refuse to make any kind of cake. It just can’t refuse to serve anyone. If a KKK member wants a dozen cupcakes, the bakery has to serve them. If someone wants a cake in the shape of, say, a pair of breasts, the bakery can say no way. You and I are on the same page, but where is the line drawn? Would it be OK for if the bakery made the cake for a SSM celebration, but refused to write “Congrats Larry and Larry” on the top, or refused to put on a cake topper showing 2 males/females? I prefer to leave it in the hands of the individual business. Trying to legislate something like this will certainly lead to unintended consequences. BTW, a friend of mine did once request a boob cake, and the business said “No”. It was a Dairy Queen. 😛 No, my friend is not the brightest bulb in the pack. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/100 "2014-02-25T17:14:19Z")
> [@Karrius](#): > > You are being a total jerk, strawmanning others… for what? This is a warning for you. Insults are not allowed outside of the Pit, so don’t do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286.md?page=6)