Why is it necessarily ‘hateful’? Is it ‘hateful’ when you go to Walmart and not to some other store?
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.
They do – which is what makes them invalid under Romer (in my opinion).
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?
Well, yes, but that’s because it’s Walmart.
“We don’t want your kind” is pretty hateful.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A pizzeria in Tucson has put a sign in its window that says, “We reserve the
right to refuse service to Arizona legislators.”
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.
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
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:
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…
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.
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:
(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:
Those statements were utterly untrue:
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’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.
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.
This is a warning for you. Insults are not allowed outside of the Pit, so don’t do it.