# 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:** 19\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/161 "2014-02-27T21:45:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. That’s not the rationale used to decide “No teaching creationism in class.” In fact, the actual rationale supporting the exclusion is the one I offered: The government simply cannot involve itself in adjudicating religious truths. In other words, the government cannot establish religion, and that means it must avoid excessive entanglements in religion. Teaching creationism as a factual truth selects on religion’s story over others; this is not permissible. I think that bridge has been crossed and burned behind us. Government gets into religious matters all the time by favoring one over another. Many of this is tradition from a time when Christian influence was stronger and more pervasive and easier to establish footholds where they’re not supposed to. Now we allow that tradition to go on because “its always been that way”. So while I think the intent you stated is factually correct, the practical outcome is not, and further disentanglements serves only to distance itself from religious matters where it SHOULD intervene, specifically, intervene to protect a less popular religion from Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/162 "2014-02-27T21:50:26Z")
Anyways, I just wanna add that I’m in no way defending religious bigots. I have low tolerance for haters of all stripes. That includes uptight Christians, as well as uptight gays Cheers!! ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/163 "2014-02-27T21:57:15Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > Anyways, I just wanna add that I’m in no way defending religious bigots. I have low tolerance for haters of all stripes. > That includes uptight Christians, as well as uptight gays. So, asking to be treated like everyone else is an act of hate now? ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/164 "2014-02-27T21:59:58Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So, asking to be treated like everyone else is an act of hate now? Have you read the whole thread?? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/165 "2014-02-27T22:01:38Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > Have you read the whole thread?? Yep. Have you? ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/166 "2014-02-27T22:18:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Yep. Have you? Obviously, I posted in it enough. I dont think gays (or anyone else for that matter) should be discriminated against. Ever!! Period!! But, If you decide to boycott someone (like Chick-Fil-A) and refuse to do business with them, then dont act all butthurt if someone else decides to stop doing business with you. To me its total hypocrisy. Let me use an analogy, lets say you have some bully running around on the street beating people up. Of course, assaulting people is wrong, but if someone comes along and beats up the bully in return, that is also wrong. So if you’re the bully, please dont whine and complain if you got your ass kicked, because you’ve done the exact same thing ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/167 "2014-02-27T22:22:22Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > Obviously, I posted in it enough. Then how do you justify equating gays with religious haters? Boycotting a business is not an act of hate; discrimination based on bigotry is. ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/168 "2014-02-27T22:30:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Then how do you justify equating gays with religious haters? Boycotting a business is not an act of hate; discrimination based on bigotry is Thats a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/169 "2014-02-27T22:34:54Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > Thats a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact Perhaps you missed the name of this forum. ---
**Author:** ![Esco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9de053/32.png) [@Esco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esco)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2014, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/170 "2014-02-27T22:49:05Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Perhaps you missed the name of this forum Strong comeback ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/171 "2014-02-28T00:39:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Forcing the religious to commit acts that are sinful would be bigotry. Forcing the religious to interact with those they consider sinful is not bigotry. > [@Bricker](#): > > Unless the religious believe that it’s sinful to interact with the sinful. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Is that ironclad? Whatever the religious claim is sinful, they cannot be compelled to do by the government? No. My line was simply intended to point out that the two rules you offered up were not always mutually exclusive. When they conflict, in the federal sphere, the RFRA requires that the government interest which is in conflict with the religious imperative be “compelling,” and the law that burdens the religious imperative must be the least restrictive. This is not true for the states – each state’s decisional law is slightly different. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/172 "2014-02-28T02:24:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well…yes, except that that has an aspect of victim-blaming. Why blame the employer’s political position? Why not blame the boycotters? Staff lose their job because the boycotters acted, yes? So if a corporation (which is a person, remember), does something despicable, none of its victims should do anything about it because it might cause injury to the corporation’s employees? :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/173 "2014-02-28T13:56:18Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > So if a corporation (which is a person, remember), does something despicable, none of its victims should do anything about it because it might cause injury to the corporation’s employees? :smack: The problem is that some people believe a man have sex with another man is “despicable.” And the further problem is: there’s no source that is universally accepted by all people as defining the truth in these matters. So if you concede that people may react to something “despicable” by harming innocent third parties, it seems to me that you concede that others can claim similar justifications in support of goals you find undesirable. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/174 "2014-02-28T14:15:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is that some people believe a man have sex with another man is “despicable.” > > And the further problem is: there’s no source that is universally accepted by all people as defining the truth in these matters. > > So if you concede that people may react to something “despicable” by harming innocent third parties, it seems to me that you concede that others can claim similar justifications in support of goals you find undesirable. Some people also believe living alongside black people is “despicable”. Thankfully, the laws and the courts have decided that one cannot turn people away from their business (or their community, etc) due to race. So laws can be drawn up to protect individuals when such beliefs (when applied to business/communities/etc) are discriminatory. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/175 "2014-02-28T14:42:23Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Some people also believe living alongside black people is “despicable”. Thankfully, the laws and the courts have decided that one cannot turn people away from their business (or their community, etc) due to race. So laws can be drawn up to protect individuals when such beliefs (when applied to business/communities/etc) are discriminatory. Absolutely correct. And that’s exactly my point. Laws are how we, as a society, express our collective will. ---
**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 28, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/176 "2014-02-28T15:51:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. That’s not the rationale used to decide “No teaching creationism in class.” In fact, the actual rationale supporting the exclusion is the one I offered: The government simply cannot involve itself in adjudicating religious truths. In other words, the government cannot establish religion, and that means it must avoid excessive entanglements in religion. Teaching creationism as a factual truth selects on religion’s story over others; this is not permissible. In addition, it’s germaine to point out that “no teaching creationism” only applies to government funded schools. I am free to open a private school and teach whatever view of creation I wish. What a government can do in relation to a private citizen is one thing, what private citizens do among themselves is completely different. > [@](#): > > Some people also believe living alongside black people is “despicable”. Thankfully, the laws and the courts have decided that one cannot turn people away from their business (or their community, etc) due to race. So laws can be drawn up to protect individuals when such beliefs (when applied to business/communities/etc) are discriminatory. To expand the answer above to this post, the government can absolutely regulate housing sales under the various commerce acts. Government can set the rules so that one cannot refuse to sell a house to a person due to race (or other protected status). But the government cannot force a citizen to live next to anyone they “dispise”. That person is free to move anywhere they like. ---
**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 28, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/177 "2014-02-28T16:04:03Z")
–Missed edit window– Can the government set up laws to force people to do something against their beliefs? Yes, there is precedent (outlawing bigamy even for Mormons, for example). Just be prepared, as **Bricker** points out, for the sword to cut both ways. If a bigot comes into your bakery and orders a cake celebrating the death of a civil rights/gay rights/anti-semite activist, be prepared to be skewered by the same law that protects you. Just in case it’s not clear, I’m posting in opposition to the laws being discussed here for exactly the reasons I laid out - unintended consequences. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/178 "2014-02-28T16:22:33Z")
As rational, profit maximizing economic actors these business owners should realize _money be green, yo._ ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286/179 "2014-02-28T23:38:05Z")
> [@Esco](#): > > Let me use an analogy, lets say you have some bully running around on the street beating people up. Of course, assaulting people is wrong, but if someone comes along and beats up the bully in return, that is also wrong. > > So if you’re the bully, please dont whine and complain if you got your ass kicked, because you’ve done the exact same thing So I can’t beat someone in self-defense? :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286.md?page=8)