Kansas Really Damn Close To Legalizing Anti-Gay Discrimination

[wipers]

even as a straight man i just don't even understand how people can be this hateful towards gay people O.o

Easy they are people. That is all you need to say.

[wipers]

no the point was "even tho i am meant to be on the "right" side i don't even understand how this can be a thing"

Merica you guys are just fucked in the head :/ (well Idaho and Kansas)

Yea no other country hates gay people oh yea Russia. Also a few states does not represent America last I checked.

[Waraji]

Yea no other country hates gay people oh yea Russia. Also a few states does not represent America last I checked.

Well... I mean the majority of the African Continent is largely anti-gay.

[kuronosan]

Yea no other country hates gay people oh yea Russia. Also a few states does not represent America last I checked.

Yea a few provinces does not represent Russia last I checked.

[notorious bum]

I lost the post I was writing, but, here's a good reference for material that should probably be taught in schools(as a giant "fuck you" to those pushing bible-class agendas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

[Waraji]

Kansas Republicans dropped the bill, for now. Mainly stating the parts about Public Services.

[Roranora]

I wish I could be a fly on the wall where some of these KS(R) conversations happen.

Shit guys, the world was not yet ready for our state to be a leader in change with this fair & balanced bill to help our local businesses operate well. Or something.

[Meresgi]

I lost the post I was writing, but, here's a good reference for material that should probably be taught in schools(as a giant "fuck you" to those pushing bible-class agendas) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality

Propaganda obviously, also history and science are evil and should never be listened to unless they say what ultra Convservatives want them to say. I mean look at Greece's economy, obviously their history of homosexuality was the root cause of this.


It amazes me that people think homosexuality is something that just came about in the last 50 years or so. I mean i've actually spoken to people who believe it's some sort of new thing.

[BaneTheBrawler]

yeah but it's worse now. never mind the fact that our population has expanded by several orders of magnitude in the last few hundred years and that, proportionately, the homosexual population (likely) is just as small a minority as it ever was. There's MORE of them! YOU CAN'T DENY THE FACTS SHEEPLE

[notorious bum]

That post reminds me of someone: What does Alex Jones say about the gays? Oh, and what about transgenders? Any intel linking Brazilian shemales to advanced extraterrestrial weaponry?

[Gredival]

People said the same thing about interracial marriage -- even quoted sections of the bible, etc. The law eventually came down on that and said, we can't force you to perform marriages, but if you're discriminating against US citizens, we can revoke your tax exempt status. The reality is that most churches can't survive without that status, so they complied. I actually brought this up in a class once and had a student pretty much reveal himself to be racist and against interracial marriage. Was a good time.

I'm confused about this; shouldn't religious organizations allowed to just decline to perform for any reason? I mean a big one could be "This is a Christian Church so we cannot wed Jews as the sacrament requires that you have accepted Jesus as Christ and savior.

I can understand if the government were revoking tax-exempt status for particular singular Churches when they have refused to wed two particular Church members for no legitimate reason other than race. But I can't see how the government could make a blanket tax policy that slams religious institutions for selectivity in marriage.

Yeah, legally this is kind of along the lines of the Colorado wedding cake maker, who it was found could not deny service to gay couples.

Curiously, under what law was the baker forced to make the cake? Equal protection and due process only prevents the federal government and states from discriminating, and most federal anti-discrimination statutes on the books do not have sexual orientation as a protected class.

[archibaldcrane]

Generally speaking, most businesses are engaged in "interstate commerce" - they order ingredients/have customers/whatever from other states, and therefore are subject to regulation by the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerc...e#Civil_rights <- pretty much prevents most businesses open to the public from discriminating against federally protected statuses. Sexual orientation is not yet one of those, but as the rulings come down it's getting closer and closer to being one.

Daniel vs. Paul 95 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.

Another good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_P...al_orientation

[Serra]

It's been a few years since I've read up on it, so it might have been in regard to adoptions and not marriage (church run orphanages or adoption agencies refusing to let interracial couples adopt), but I feel it was related to interracial marriage. I don't think it was a blanket law though because that would be violating the separation of church and state (and because you still see cases of churches refusing to marry interracial couples). I believe that if a couple is denied the right, then they can take it to the courts, and that's when penalties like revoking tax exemption can occur.

The argument would be that you're violating the civil rights of someone else. The government has a duty to uphold your civil rights and liberties, but when your liberties start infringing on the civil rights and liberties of another person, then there are grounds to bring it to the courts. If I started a religion that said I had to own 10 slaves to get into heaven, the government doesn't have a right to force me to change my religion or the beliefs of my religion, but they can prevent me from owning other human beings because I'd be violating their civil liberties.

[archibaldcrane]

Arizona calls out Kansans as faggots, now a Gov. Jan Brewer signature away from legalized discrimination.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...criminate-bill

[Gredival]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerc...e#Civil_rights <- pretty much prevents most businesses open to the public from discriminating against federally protected statuses. Sexual orientation is not yet one of those, but as the rulings come down it's getting closer and closer to being one.

That's why I'm curious because afaik sexual orientation is not a protected class unless it's found to be the case that it was a form of gender discrimination (i.e. we don't serve gays here because they aren't real men since they don't like girls). The EEOC has successfully brought suit under that trick before.

As for commerce clause authority, the courts go are over the map on what constitutes interstate commerce sometimes.

It's been a few years since I've read up on it, so it might have been in regard to adoptions and not marriage (church run orphanages or adoption agencies refusing to let interracial couples adopt), but I feel it was related to interracial marriage. I don't think it was a blanket law though because that would be violating the separation of church and state (and because you still see cases of churches refusing to marry interracial couples). I believe that if a couple is denied the right, then they can take it to the courts, and that's when penalties like revoking tax exemption can occur.

The adoption thing sounds plausible; Churches can probably hide behind smokescreens like say the pastor/priest didn't believe the couple was ready for marriage. But denying a couple that comes to them for adoption is a different matter since it's not a spiritual service being offered.

[Killerme]

Arizona calls out Kansans as faggots, now a Gov. Jan Brewer signature away from legalized discrimination.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/201...criminate-bill

I'd like to apologize on behalf of my state. The people here are only a fraction as crazy as the legislators. Relevant image, a business in Tucson posted this in response:

[Callisto]

Arizona's political news is always like Florida's regular news

[Blubbartron]

I'd like to apologize on behalf of my state. The people here are only a fraction as crazy as the legislators. Relevant image, a business in Tucson posted this in response:

As is typical with large, mostly rural states, the few cities are progressive and educated, but the overwhelming majority of the state is full of backwards ignorant rednecks.

I thing I don't understand is how any person can think it's rational to let free expression of religion include how you treat other people. By that logic, if my religion says that I should stone people to death, then it should be perfectly acceptable for me to stone people to death. Even if you limit it to stoning people that share the same religion (think indian reservation concept of a justice system), that's still extremely fucked up.

<insert rant about stupid fucking "woe is me I'm so persecuted because I can't use my status as the majority to continue fucking over the minorities I have been for centuries" Christians>

[Callisto]

I more don't understand the argument of hey let's make institutionalized discrimination so that we can avoid discrimination

[Aksannyi]

My problem lies with this, and I'm sure most will disagree with me:

First let me state that I am pro-gay marriage and I am actively against hatred and bigotry in any way.

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.