# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 98
**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. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/seriously-its-2014-kansas-house-passes-bill-allowing-service-refusal-to-gay-couples/681286)._