Kansas Really Damn Close To Legalizing Anti-Gay Discrimination

[archibaldcrane]

Honestly, sexual orientation rights (like race or gender) should be prioritized over religious rights, for the simple reason that humans do not get to choose their race, gender, or sexual orientation.

[Aksannyi]

One could argue that they are born that way, too. Religious folks believe they are born saved (I don't necessarily believe this), while homosexuals believe they are born gay (I do believe this). Religious folks don't believe that homosexuals are born that way, that they do choose it. Plenty of non-religious folks believe that religion is a choice. To a point, yes it is. But when you've been indoctrinated into it your whole life (which is admittedly shitty), you believe it came by birth. As someone who was born into religion, you do feel like you are born a certain way and like you don't have a choice - only in adulthood and joining the military did I realize that I did have religious freedom. It pissed my mother off, but oh well lol.

So while I would be inclined to agree with you, I'd also be willing to bet that many religious people feel born that way the same way that homosexuals are.

[Callisto]

If a person who is attracted to the same sex was born in a vacuum without specific outside influence in regards to what their sexual orientation would be, I believe they would still be gay. If a person is Christian was born in a vacuum without people telling them as they grow up that they're a Christian, they would not be Christian.

[notorious bum]

Begone with logic, you queer-lover!

[Xantavia]

If they are going to claim religion gives them the right to discriminate against people, I say let them. However, they must also believe and follow everything else in their holy scripture of choice. They can't start picking favorites, by refusing service to gay people but openly accepting adulterers for example.

[Aksannyi]

If a person who is attracted to the same sex was born in a vacuum without specific outside influence in regards to what their sexual orientation would be, I believe they would still be gay. If a person is Christian was born in a vacuum without people telling them as they grow up that they're a Christian, they would not be Christian.

Good point, but they would argue otherwise.

I just think it provokes some thought. I don't expect people to turn around and agree that the religious are being persecuted. Especially since I know how most of BG feels about religion.

Again, I don't believe that the religious are highly persecuted (not to the extent that they say, and certainly not more than the gays), and I'm very pro-gay, or as pro-gay as I can be without actually being gay. I just think it's worth some thought. A little bit of devil's advocacy, if you will.

[archibaldcrane]

I just think it's hilarious that Christians think that Jesus wouldn't protect homosexuals from the mob looking to cast the first stone.

[Aksannyi]

I agree they are very hypocritical and that's why religion is losing favor in general. "Love thy neighbor, except that faggot," etc.

[Guyverarmor]

Agreed but we all know in the end :

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instanc...x/46328448.jpg

[Callisto]

I just think it's hilarious that Christians think that Jesus wouldn't protect homosexuals from the mob looking to cast the first stone.

Nah, I think it's just a hedged bet. Either Jesus does, and that totally proves that they were right all along, or he doesn't and they got to hit the gay guy with a rock. Win-win.

[ronin sparthos]

If they are going to claim religion gives them the right to discriminate against people, I say let them. However, they must also believe and follow everything else in their holy scripture of choice. They can't start picking favorites, by refusing service to gay people but openly accepting adulterers for example.

Gay bashing is simply what's in vogue alongside the tired aims to control sexual activity.

If you dared tried to follow some of the other biblical teachings like say - animal sacrifice, taking women as sex prisoners, selling daughters for money, trading slaves or stoning unruly children to death you'd be called a barbarian and the apologetics would put the issues to bed. I imagine this is what will happen eventually with the gay marriage issue - I'd just like to know if it'll happen before 2100.

Discrimination is safe 'n easy, it's what the masses gravitate towards. Gays are scary. People don't want to have to think about sex between people of the same gender or that gender may be far more complex than we give it credit for. Same bunch who had problems with races and any other case of 'I don't like change'.

[ronin sparthos]

I just think it's hilarious that Christians think that Jesus wouldn't protect homosexuals from the mob looking to cast the first stone.

Which Jesus are we talking here? Hippie Jesus, Walker: Texas Jesus or Jesus: CEO of Christian Industries.

[Ashmada]

That being said, at what point does our quest for non-discrimination infringe on the rights of others? Yes, gays should have the right to be who they are, do what they do, and live their lives. Not disputing that one bit. However, religious people truly believe that it is wrong and it is against their belief set. This is bigoted, I know, but people of faith have the right to believe that. At its core, you have two groups of people whose rights to be who they are put themselves directly at odds.

Simple: on one hand, you have the right to be who you are, the mere right to exist.
On the other, you have the right to meddle in other people's business.

The former is a basic human right, the latter should be discouraged, not defended.
LBGT people don't threaten the religious in any way and gay marriage doesn't force anything on the religious (don't give me that "marriage is a sacred institution, an union through god" BS, it far predates christianity); whereas the religious are trying to dictate upon those who harm none.

Keep in mind that a lot of this is hypothetical. I think that the religious are not even close to the level of persecution that the homosexuals are. But I'm not so short-sighted to think that in a decade or two, the religious will once again need to fight to keep their ability to practice their religious lifestyle, the way that the homosexuals are currently fighting for theirs. It's something to think about.

The religious persecuted in western society, especially on your side of the Atlantic? I'd like to see ONE example.
Now, in other parts of the world, that certainly is the case, but it's usually (not always, I know) the religious persecuting other religious people for drinking from the
same teapot in a slightly different manner.

Also, I'm very puzzled about the "again" part.

I feel like I've said what I need to say on this, and it's not really something that I want to get into heavy debate over, and being that there are an awful lot of people who have an absolute hatred of religion (bordering on bigotry) on BG, I am sure this will raise a lot of shit. But my point is this - when evaluating rights, when do you stop granting rights if they take away from someone else? This is the struggle I see with this.

Bolded: nonsequitur. You can't be bigoted against an ideology; and that is all religion is, an ideology.
And, in the case of monotheistic religions, those ideologies are violent, destructive and oppressive. Those religions are despicable, who should we not despise them?

(not trying to "raise shit", btw, just trying to answer your devil's advocate arguments)

[Aksannyi]

Simple: on one hand, you have the right to be who you are, the mere right to exist.
On the other, you have the right to meddle in other people's business.

The former is a basic human right, the latter should be discouraged, not defended.
LBGT people don't threaten the religious in any way and gay marriage doesn't force anything on the religious (don't give me that "marriage is a sacred institution, an union through god" BS, it far predates christianity); whereas the religious are trying to dictate upon those who harm none.

I don't disagree with this. The religious might argue that their right to practice is a basic human right, but it's not. We afford people rights to practice as they please because we pride ourselves on being a tolerant nation. (Yes, I totally laughed at that.)

The religious persecuted in western society, especially on your side of the Atlantic? I'd like to see ONE example.
Now, in other parts of the world, that certainly is the case, but it's usually (not always, I know) the religious persecuting other religious people for drinking from the
same teapot in a slightly different manner.

Also, I'm very puzzled about the "again" part.

Just addressing the "again" part - I can't remember because my history fails me, but there was a time when Catholics in particular had to hide the practice of their faith, convening in secret in order to practice. This predates American history by quite some time, and historically, religious were never truly persecuted in the US, so you are right on that front.

However, hate is hate, and I'm of the mindset that no one should be hated on the basis of race, gender, sex, sexuality, or religion, even though it can be said that only one of those is a choice taken up by the person after birth. I do see an awful lot of hate, an awful lot of "religious people are so stupid" floating around. I believe that the vast majority of them are harmless and a bunch of vocal idiots make them all look bad. Personally, I do believe in some type of higher power, but certainly not to the point where I would persecute someone based on my beliefs in said being (more of an entity than "god," which is why I don't say god) nor where I would use religious doctrine to shape my understanding of the world (also known as ignoring science).

Is that persecution? No. They are still allowed to practice what they want in their churches, mosques, synagogues, homes, etc. Do I think persecution could happen? Yes. I do think that it's not outside the realm of possibility. I do hope it never does happen that way, but I can see the potential for it.

As it stands though, no, the American religious have not been persecuted, and having used that word in my previous post was an error. Presently, they are just looked upon with scorn and/or disdain from many, though that's not actual persecution.

Bolded: nonsequitur. You can't be bigoted against an ideology; and that is all religion is, an ideology.
And, in the case of monotheistic religions, those ideologies are violent, destructive and oppressive. Those religions are despicable, who should we not despise them?

I don't know that I believe all religious are violent, destructive, and oppressive. I believe that there are plenty of bad apples that fight in the name of their religion. The truly devout are the ones that are the most dangerous and likely to go overboard, but I still believe that the majority of religious (and I'm not just talking about Christianity here, though as far as homosexual hatred, they are either the worst or the most vocal about it) are generally good people trying to live good lives. Quite a few Christians do believe in God, believe in Jesus Christ, and are advocates for homosexual equality, even in contrast to their religious doctrine. Hell, look at the Pope, even he has indicated that he is "not one to judge" homosexuals and promoted a message of acceptance, and not of hatred.

(not trying to "raise shit", btw, just trying to answer your devil's advocate arguments)

No worries. I didn't think I wanted to debate but this is actually fascinating to me.

[Ashmada]

Not going to quote the specific paragraphs, but I'd like to clarity 2 things:
- You can hate/despise a religion without hating its worshippers.
- I don't judge religious people by the worst of them. Sure, not all muslims are terrorists and not all christians are crusaders/inquisitors. I judge them by the texts they call sacred and trust me, when it comes to christianity and islam, if you read the whole thing and not just the cherry-picked niceties, those texts are positively bloodcurdling. All monotheists might not be violent, but their sacred texts, their ideologies very much are.

[Aksannyi]

Fair enough, on both points.

[hey]

However, religious people truly believe that it is wrong and it is against their belief set. This is bigoted, I know, but people of faith have the right to believe that. At its core, you have two groups of people whose rights to be who they are put themselves directly at odds.

This is ridiculous. Other people getting married does not affect them.

[Meresgi]

I just think it's hilarious that Christians think that Jesus wouldn't protect homosexuals from the mob looking to cast the first stone.

should generalize more

[Gredival]

That being said, at what point does our quest for non-discrimination infringe on the rights of others? Yes, gays should have the right to be who they are, do what they do, and live their lives. Not disputing that one bit. However, religious people truly believe that it is wrong and it is against their belief set. This is bigoted, I know, but people of faith have the right to believe that. At its core, you have two groups of people whose rights to be who they are put themselves directly at odds.

And I don't fully believe that religious people come purely from a position of hate. They come from a position of ignorance, yes, but not purely hatred. They believe that the homosexuals are sinners and that can be saved and turned. That is just a core set of their beliefs, whether you subscribe to it or not. It doesn't matter what you say or do, most of them are never ever going to deviate from that set of beliefs, and to continue to push hatred down upon them is persecution, plain and simple, even if people are going to say things like, "Poor white privilege." Even if they're not being persecuted to the extent that the homosexuals are, there is still plenty of it going right back upon the religious, and that really shouldn't be ignored, even if you don't feel "sorry" for them one iota, they are indeed entitled to hold their beliefs.

My question is this though: at what point does granting the gays rights in certain arenas directly take rights from the religious?

Granted, these are not religious establishments, that's fine and dandy. But there are many ways to be a conscientious objector without killing the rights of anyone. There is no solution to make everyone happy. There is no solution to avoid hurting someone's rights. Religious people should have the right to avoid interacting with homosexuals. Businesses are, at their core, granted the right to refuse to serve anyone they please at their discretion, which is what this law states at its very core.

The truth is, when you have two groups of people who are directly at odds with one another, how do you grant rights to one without taking rights from the other? How do you say to one group "You have the right to be here," while saying to the others, "You do not have the right to refuse to interact with this group of people based on your beliefs." That essentially negates the value of their religious beliefs.

Yes, we are a secular nation, but you can't deny that with religious freedom being one of the foundations upon which we were built, that we still have to do what we can to not undermine that. When gays have all the rights they can, will the religious then have to fight to regain theirs back?

Keep in mind that a lot of this is hypothetical. I think that the religious are not even close to the level of persecution that the homosexuals are. But I'm not so short-sighted to think that in a decade or two, the religious will once again need to fight to keep their ability to practice their religious lifestyle, the way that the homosexuals are currently fighting for theirs. It's something to think about.

I feel like I've said what I need to say on this, and it's not really something that I want to get into heavy debate over, and being that there are an awful lot of people who have an absolute hatred of religion (bordering on bigotry) on BG, I am sure this will raise a lot of shit. But my point is this - when evaluating rights, when do you stop granting rights if they take away from someone else? This is the struggle I see with this.

Anyway I will shut up now. I hope that if nothing else, what I've said will at least provoke some thought.

Law is about deciding the norms which best accomplish this. Rights always come into conflict with the freedom of others. My freedom to swing my fist conflicts with your right not to get socked in the face for no good reason. My freedom to throw live grenades around conflicts with the public's right to safety.

In this case there are multiple possible claims being made depending on the opposition in question.

Some claim that society should not accept gay marriages (or even homosexuality in general) because it conflicts with the religious beliefs of some, and that tolerance is forcing others to go against their beliefs. Some claim that the "institution" of marriage is for a man and a woman and that gay marriage is trying to change the fundamental nature of the relationship (these people are usually fine with civil unions).

At their heart, antidiscrimination laws are society's way of saying "No it's not fine to treat someone differently just because of their race, gender, sex, religion, etc." because we believe that people's right to live free of hate overrules the right of bigots to indulge their personal beliefs and idiosyncracies.

Religion is not a grant of total immunity from anti-discrimination laws. We do not grant people the right to stone adulterers to death just because Leviticus says so. Similarly we would not permit extremist Muslims to discriminate against women because their interpretation of the Quaran says females are inferior. That's simply the tax of living in the U.S.

The law defending the LBGT community is still developing, but at it's heart it will be about what we want to define as the borders of people being free to embrace their own sexuality/lifestyle.

Do people who believe homosexuality is a sin have a right to live free from contact from them? That seems like a definite no. People who believed non-whites were dangerous and inferior did not have a right to keep all-white neighborhoods and workplaces and businesses.

Does the government have the right to distinguish between marriages and civil unions based on the sex of the partners, even if the two grant the same rights and privileges (which usually isn't the case, but let's say it is hypothetically)? Lots of people say no, pointing to the Supreme Court language that says separate is inherently not equal.

And remember that many people switch positions on religious freedom as it suits them. Many of these people who believe they should be free from the government forcing acceptance on them are fine forcing quasi-religious beliefs onto others through legislation because the US was founded as "a Christian nation" (for example, anti-abortion bills are usually predicated on the Christian belief that life starts at conception, therefore being murder).

[Aksannyi]

This is ridiculous. Other people getting married does not affect them.

Of course it doesn't. But the forced interaction via anti-discrimination laws does, which is what has them so upset. I realize that it's their base homophobia and their fear of "catching" homosexuality like it's a disease and based on pure ignorance.

The bakery case (I believe from Colorado) is a good example, the gay couple was upset because a religious man refused to make a cake for their wedding. If I were a gay person (obviously I am not and thus I might be completely different, but if I were a gay person who is essentially the same as I am now, just into chicks), I would have probably been like "All right, fuck you buddy, I'll take my business elsewhere," and then told all my friends not to go there because they're bigots. Then if the outrage at their bigotry is high enough, they'll lose business and the free market will sort itself out. But if they had simply said, "We're booked up, sorry guys, we can't," while secretly meaning but never explicitly stating, "Go elsewhere, homos," would that have changed it? Maybe?

In that case, yes, the gay marriage did affect them, though rather insignificantly. If it were against his religion to bake a cake with an inverted pentagram being held by hands with stigmata, do you think this would have also gotten that attention? I doubt it. Is the baker obliged to make that cake? It's a little different, religion opposing another religion, but also a case of discretionary refusal of service based on religious ideology.

I think that people need to stop being offended about everything, on both sides of the fence. To me, business is business, nothing is personal. I might not like your glitter penis cake, but if it makes me money, I will fucking bake it. (I'm not a baker but you get the idea.) It's called work, it's your job, you do what you have to do to get your paycheck and then you can be the most bigoted, hateful person you can be when you punch out if you want to. For some reason, a lot of people seem to forget that which is why laws - particularly anti-discriminatory employment laws - are made. There are probably still a lot of white shop owners who hate blacks but serve them anyway because money is green no matter who it comes from.

But at the end of the day, it's sad that the government has to intervene into everyone's lives because we can't just not be assholes to each other.

It's really hard for me to argue on behalf of the religious people, I can't even lie. I'm running out of steam here honestly.