• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kansas is Getting Dumber

Correction:

The Church of Irony's new stance is that marriage is only acceptable when there are more women than men in it. We're sort of vaguely like Mormonism, but without all the blathering on about Jesus.

The bill is explicit about the religious beliefs being specific to "gender." As such, my first idea wouldn't have worked.
 
Manopolus said:
Correction:

The Church of Irony's new stance is that marriage is only acceptable when there are more women than men in it. We're sort of vaguely like Mormonism, but without all the blathering on about Jesus.

The bill is explicit about the religious beliefs being specific to "gender." As such, my first idea wouldn't have worked.
Click to expand...

To me, "specific" and "discrimination" are two words that don't belong in the same idea. Once you've established religion as a principle by which to discriminate in one case (gender), you've implicitly established it as a principle that can be used in any other. It's opening a door that a secular government has no business opening- one, in fact, it's supposed to be keeping firmly closed.

The bill also contains a provision by which the government effectively washes its hands of its own effects- in any case where an individual state employee refuses service based on his individual religious belief, the state is obligated to provide another who will do the job. So the government gets to effectively endorse that individual belief with one hand while absolving itself of involvement in it with the other- very neat. Of course, the need for this could have been avoided by simply doing what a secular government is supposed to do to begin with- just stay out of religion and its strictures altogether.
 
turingtest said:
Since when is telling someone that they're obligated to do the job they're hired for "discrimination" against them?
Click to expand...
When there's gay.
If a government employee's "religious beliefs" forbid him from allowing a Mormon foster care service, will Rep Macheers defend that?
Click to expand...
Probably only if there's also some gay.
If a true-blue Christian says "I can't give unemployment benefits to a black man because of the curse of Canaan," is this ok?
Click to expand...
Black gay is extra icky, so that'd be a factor.
Where's the line drawn between where those beliefs are allowable and need "shielding" and where the beliefs become too ridiculous to merit "protection"?
Click to expand...
The gay line.
What metric does Macheers propose to distinguish between discrimination against state employees for their beliefs and discrimination by them based on those beliefs?
Click to expand...
The degree of Freddie Mercury in the thermometer.
 
turingtest said:
To me, "specific" and "discrimination" are two words that don't belong in the same idea. Once you've established religion as a principle by which to discriminate in one case (gender), you've implicitly established it as a principle that can be used in any other. It's opening a door that a secular government has no business opening- one, in fact, it's supposed to be keeping firmly closed.

The bill also contains a provision by which the government effectively washes its hands of its own effects- in any case where an individual state employee refuses service based on his individual religious belief, the state is obligated to provide another who will do the job. So the government gets to effectively endorse that individual belief with one hand while absolving itself of involvement in it with the other- very neat. Of course, the need for this could have been avoided by simply doing what a secular government is supposed to do to begin with- just stay out of religion and its strictures altogether.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. I'll have to admit that I would not have been the sort to advocate much for gay marriage or gay rights in general. While I'm all for equal rights, the issue makes me a bit -- uncomfortable, being a product of the culture that I grew up in. I'm actually just fine with gay marriage, but I'm not somebody that would publicly advocate for it under normal conditions.

I've been fairly vocal about this, however... since they made it about religious liberties and violated the constitution in the process.

Anyway, I just found out that the bill is reportedly dead in the senate. Apparently, Kansas legislators found out that even the most vocal opponents of gay marriage in Kansas won't support this. I'd give you a link, but I sort of got it from a Facebook post rather than a news source.

On another note, the fact that Brownback spoke favorably about this bill may be his downfall. This time next year, we may have a Democrat for governor. His name is Paul Davis. This fiasco played into his hands quite nicely. Now if we could just find a Democrat to oppose each of the Republicans that voted for this bill, it would be nice... not likely though. Most of them are generally unopposed in their elections. That's part of the problem in Kansas politics.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I couldn't agree with you more. I'll have to admit that I would not have been the sort to advocate much for gay marriage or gay rights in general. While I'm all for equal rights, the issue makes me a bit -- uncomfortable, being a product of the culture that I grew up in. I'm actually just fine with gay marriage, but I'm not somebody that would publicly advocate for it under normal conditions.

I've been fairly vocal about this, however... since they made it about religious liberties and violated the constitution in the process.

Anyway, I just found out that the bill is reportedly dead in the senate. Apparently, Kansas legislators found out that even the most vocal opponents of gay marriage in Kansas won't support this. I'd give you a link, but I sort of got it from a Facebook post rather than a news source.

On another note, the fact that Brownback spoke favorably about this bill may be his downfall. This time next year, we may have a Democrat for governor. His name is Paul Davis. This fiasco played into his hands quite nicely. Now if we could just find a Democrat to oppose each of the Republicans that voted for this bill, it would be nice... not likely though. Most of them are generally unopposed in their elections. That's part of the problem in Kansas politics.
Click to expand...

That's good news, the bill stalling (at least) in the Senate; maybe there's enough common sense there to keep from opening a can of worms that's best left unopened.

I live in Mississippi; this sounds like just the sort of thing one of our "bubba" legislators would latch on to ("bubba" is not an exaggeration for effect- IIRC, there is at least one proudly named just that). Recently, there was a move here to add (not just keep- go out of the way to add) "In God We Trust" to the state seal. I haven't really looked to see where this is lately, but this kind of thing is a shoo-in down here.

Though there is a certain amount of moderation possible- it hasn't been that long ago (about two years, I think) that a "personhood" amendment was rejected by the voters here by about a 65-35% margin. That was right around the time the Internet came to Mississippi- maybe that had something to do with it (j/k).
 
In a surprising move, the Kansas state Senate Republican leadership announced on Friday that it was killing – at least, in its current form – a controversial religious liberty measure, harpooned for opening the door to broad anti-gay discrimination.

House Bill 2453, as drafted and passed by the Republican-controlled state House of Representatives this week, would give any individual, business, group, or government official the right to deny same-sex couples a host of basic goods, services, benefits, or employment – on the grounds of a conflicting “sincerely held religious belief.” Lawmakers in the state House approved the measure on Wednesday by a vote of 72-49.

The bill was widely expected to pass the state Senate, too, as Republicans outnumber Democrats 32-8 in that chamber. But Republican state Sen. Susan Wagle, the Senate’s president, poured cold water on its prospects Thursday night when she released a statement saying that a majority of her caucus opposed the bill’s potential green light to discriminate. On Friday, she reaffirmed that position.

“I believe that when you hire police officers or a fireman that they have no choice in who they serve,” Wagle said at a news conference Friday, according to the Wichita Eagle. “They serve anyone who’s vulnerable, any age, any race, any sexual orientation.”

“Public service needs to remain public service for the entire public,” she added.
Click to expand...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kansas-gop-retreats-controversial-bill

a weaselly excuse, but good enough in the end.
 
Damn! I was hoping it would pass. It is ZOMG crazy laws like this that lead to sweeping court decisions that make it difficult for the more weaselly-worded laws to sneak by.
 
A response to an email I sent to my state senator:

Dear Max,

Thank you for your email. This bill, heard over in the House, does not have any chance of passage here in the Senate or even very little of a chance of having a hearing. It was assigned to the Judiciary Committee and I will watch for any activity on it. I am a no vote on it as it was passed out of the House and I too am offended by the discrimination it implies.

Thank you again –
Sen. Elaine
Click to expand...

Anyway, it seems to be a bit stronger in its confirmation that the bill is dead, so I thought I'd share.
 
Interesting article in Salon today. It makes a point I hadn't thought of, but on examination, makes a lot of sense. Libertarians like to claim that laws like this empower people to hold their own racist opinions. But what they don't realize is that these laws must be enforced. If a person wants to discriminate against gays, that's fine, you say, but suppose the parties they want to discriminate against object? Perhaps they won't leave your restaurant or other place of business. What do you do then? Well, you call the police, of course. But here's the deal. Once you call the law, you force the government into the act of discriminating against gays to support your prejudice, and at that point, it stops being a "personal opinion". It becomes government sanctioned and government enforced discrimination, and that is not what the government should do.

So if the lawmen refuse to enforce your personal prejudice, what do you do? Who do you appeal to? How would you word your appeal? Do you say, "I wish to be a bigot, and the government must support me in this."?

As I say, I'd love to see a case like this come to court so a law like this could be overturned faster than you can blink. But it won't happen this time. Dammit.
 
Tricky said:
Interesting article in Salon today. It makes a point I hadn't thought of, but on examination, makes a lot of sense. Libertarians like to claim that laws like this empower people to hold their own racist opinions. But what they don't realize is that these laws must be enforced. If a person wants to discriminate against gays, that's fine, you say, but suppose the parties they want to discriminate against object? Perhaps they won't leave your restaurant or other place of business. What do you do then? Well, you call the police, of course. But here's the deal. Once you call the law, you force the government into the act of discriminating against gays to support your prejudice, and at that point, it stops being a "personal opinion". It becomes government sanctioned and government enforced discrimination, and that is not what the government should do.
Click to expand...
I don't think Libertarians would have any problems with the police enforcing their right to discriminate as I don't think they'd see it that way. The police, I think they'd argue, are not discriminating, rather they are just enforcing the business owners rights.
 
Tricky said:
Interesting article in Salon today. It makes a point I hadn't thought of, but on examination, makes a lot of sense. Libertarians like to claim that laws like this empower people to hold their own racist opinions. But what they don't realize is that these laws must be enforced. If a person wants to discriminate against gays, that's fine, you say, but suppose the parties they want to discriminate against object? Perhaps they won't leave your restaurant or other place of business. What do you do then? Well, you call the police, of course. But here's the deal. Once you call the law, you force the government into the act of discriminating against gays to support your prejudice, and at that point, it stops being a "personal opinion". It becomes government sanctioned and government enforced discrimination, and that is not what the government should do.

So if the lawmen refuse to enforce your personal prejudice, what do you do? Who do you appeal to? How would you word your appeal? Do you say, "I wish to be a bigot, and the government must support me in this."?

As I say, I'd love to see a case like this come to court so a law like this could be overturned faster than you can blink. But it won't happen this time. Dammit.
Click to expand...
It is a good point, and one that, like most good points, seems obvious once it's made. Nobody would argue that someone with objections (on any ground) to gay people should be forced by law, as private individuals, to invite them into their homes. But the equation changes when they become business owners inviting the public into their establishments. And they have no right, once they invite that public, to insist that the state should enforce their private bigotries, since their own action in establishing the business took them out of the only sphere- the home- where discrimination is either proper or relevant.

The article didn't point it out, but the situation also seems analogous to the lunch-counter sit-ins of the 60's, where the state enforced a state-sanctioned discrimination by ejecting (and/or jailing) those protesting against it. I know the anti-gays don't like the comparison, but what they like is neither here nor there when it's their own actions that make the comparison.
 
Tricky said:
Interesting article in Salon today. It makes a point I hadn't thought of, but on examination, makes a lot of sense. Libertarians like to claim that laws like this empower people to hold their own racist opinions. But what they don't realize is that these laws must be enforced. If a person wants to discriminate against gays, that's fine, you say, but suppose the parties they want to discriminate against object? Perhaps they won't leave your restaurant or other place of business. What do you do then? Well, you call the police, of course. But here's the deal. Once you call the law, you force the government into the act of discriminating against gays to support your prejudice, and at that point, it stops being a "personal opinion". It becomes government sanctioned and government enforced discrimination, and that is not what the government should do.

So if the lawmen refuse to enforce your personal prejudice, what do you do? Who do you appeal to? How would you word your appeal? Do you say, "I wish to be a bigot, and the government must support me in this."?

As I say, I'd love to see a case like this come to court so a law like this could be overturned faster than you can blink. But it won't happen this time. Dammit.
Click to expand...

Can't they employ bouncers?
 
sphenisc said:
Can't they employ bouncers?
Click to expand...

I've never done any bouncing, but I think even bouncers need legal sanction and backup; IOW, if a fight results from someone refusing to be bounced, the police are the only recourse for backing up the action and the law the final sanction for its results. So it amounts to the same thing in the end.
 
Well, as I mentioned in a discussion elsewhere... the wedding cake judicial decision in Colorado which inspired this law:

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2...orces-baker-to-sell-cake-to-gays-2580454.html

...only says that you have to sell products to all comers, regardless of sexual orientation. The cake seller could conceivably only sell cakes that contain the text "marriage is between a man and a woman" somewhere on the cake (or something like that) and still be within the law as long as the policy is consistent. He can't, however, refuse to sell even that cake to gay people, but his right to be a sanctimonious prick is still protected up to a point.

For reference, in the conversation in question, the other party was a bit confused about it and thought that the law was somehow dictating what products the seller can or must sell -- which it most certainly does not. A gay marriage cake is no different than a straight marriage cake as far as I know... although the couple may have had specific requests about how the cake was made (don't know either way on that one... didn't even read my own link yet) which may or may not suggest otherwise.

(sheesh, just realized how awful that link is... sorry. I wasn't the one that originally looked it up.)

The way I see the case in point is that refusing to sell to gay people is no different than refusing to sell to black people. It invokes The Civil Rights Act.

If the case required the cake seller to keep a topper with two grooms in stock, he might have had a point. The grey area would be in any requested wording/symbolism, or whatever on the cake... but unless the shop has a clear policy on that prior to the order (of the sort you might see like not allowing graphic sexual content, profanities, or whatever... I'm not sure how one would go about legally singling out gays on this other than what I've already mentioned with the required text), I can't see how they can invoke it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom