Good work, Arizona (1 Viewer)

[Hilts]

I realize gays are slowly being accepted across the country. It's clear with time, bills like this will become largely a thing of the past. And I'm pretty sure this will get killed by the Supreme Court if/when it passes (though I'm no lawyer and am only guessing).

With that said, it's still pretty revolting to realize somebody actually thought this was a good idea, and enough other people thought this was a good idea to get it to where it is now.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/

(CNN) -- Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.

House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.

It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.

Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.

They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

This includes employees of the state.

The politics

The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.

"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.

"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."

Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.

Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.

Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.

"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity," he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.

The details

HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.

It reads, in part: "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:

"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."

Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.

There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.

If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.

It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.

The trend

The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.

Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.

Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.

 

[bigbottom]

There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.

If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.

But only if it would not be an undue hardship on the employer.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKansas

 

[jon_mx]

Christianity is about forgiving sins. It makes no sense that any Christian singles out homosexuality as a sin which needs to be punished. Jesus reached out to everyone (and everyone is a sinner) and did not condemn them, but offered all salvation.

 

[bigbottom]

Christianity is about forgiving sins. It makes no sense that any Christian singles out homosexuality as a sin which needs to be punished. Jesus reached out to everyone (and everyone is a sinner) and did not condemn them, but offered all salvation.

Clearly you're not familiar with the often overlooked part of the parable where JC refused to give loaves and fishes to the gays.

 

[rockaction]

No problem with this. This stems from the lawsuits in other states over providing services for gay couples that want to be married, e.g., lawsuits against cake-makers, etc.

Doing it through legislation is probably stupid and tin-eared, but the suits in other states have been obnoxious, IMO. Compelling people to provide goods, services, and religious sacraments was never supposed to be part of the civic understanding about gay marriage.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Dorothy & Toto couldn't get out fast enough.

 

[Parrothead]

where?

 

[McGarnicle]

Christianity is about forgiving sins. It makes no sense that any Christian singles out homosexuality as a sin which needs to be punished. Jesus reached out to everyone (and everyone is a sinner) and did not condemn them, but offered all salvation.

Clearly you're not familiar with the often overlooked part of the parable where JC refused to give loaves and fishes to the gays.

Well if they were baguettes, you can't blame him.

 

[bigbottom]

No problem with this. This stems from the lawsuits in other states over providing services for gay couples that want to be married, e.g., lawsuits against cake-makers, etc.

Doing it through legislation is probably stupid and tin-eared, but the suits in other states have been obnoxious, IMO. Compelling people to provide goods, services, and religious sacraments was never supposed to be part of the civic understanding about gay marriage.

It's a vaguely worded law, but it appears to go well beyond providing services in connection with gay weddings. It appears to protect the local diner that wants to put up a "no gay couples served here" sign in the window, or the individual waiter at an otherwise non-discriminatory diner who doesn't want to bring food out to a gay couple. You may have no problem with that either - just clarifying the apparent scope of the law.

 

[rockaction]

No problem with this. This stems from the lawsuits in other states over providing services for gay couples that want to be married, e.g., lawsuits against cake-makers, etc.

Doing it through legislation is probably stupid and tin-eared, but the suits in other states have been obnoxious, IMO. Compelling people to provide goods, services, and religious sacraments was never supposed to be part of the civic understanding about gay marriage.

It's a vaguely worded law, but it appears to go well beyond providing services in connection with gay weddings. It appears to protect the local diner that wants to put up a "no gay couples served here" sign in the window, or the individual waiter at an otherwise non-discriminatory diner who doesn't want to bring food out to a gay couple. You may have no problem with that either - just clarifying the apparent scope of the law.

I don't think so. See the clause:

"...related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Not sure common carriers can do this constitutionally, but it seems kind of clear why they're passing the law.

Regardless, I'm just irritated by couples suing bakers for not making them cakes. This legislative wording itself may be much more problematic than that. I just understand the impulse. It might even be, paradoxically, covering the legislature's ### when they pass civil unions or gay marriage in Kansas. Then they can point to the statute. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

 

[fatness]

Thomas Witt, spokesman, for Equality Kansas, said proponents of the bill have misrepresented it. Existing laws would protect Kansas businesses from civil lawsuits if same-sex marriage became legal tomorrow, he said.

The bill’s true purpose is to enable discrimination by government employees, Witt said.

“Every single rural county in this state has same-sex couples. Government officials in those counties are going to be able to turn them away from services that they deserve as taxpayers,” he said.

Rep. Don Hill, R-Emporia, introduced an amendment to strike government employees from the bill, explaining that many rural counties have a limited number of employees. That failed to pass.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/12/4817862/kansas-house-approves-response.html

 

[fatness]

And because it would give public employees the right to discriminate against gays, the bill is now on hold.

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.

 

[bigbottom]

No problem with this. This stems from the lawsuits in other states over providing services for gay couples that want to be married, e.g., lawsuits against cake-makers, etc.

Doing it through legislation is probably stupid and tin-eared, but the suits in other states have been obnoxious, IMO. Compelling people to provide goods, services, and religious sacraments was never supposed to be part of the civic understanding about gay marriage.

It's a vaguely worded law, but it appears to go well beyond providing services in connection with gay weddings. It appears to protect the local diner that wants to put up a "no gay couples served here" sign in the window, or the individual waiter at an otherwise non-discriminatory diner who doesn't want to bring food out to a gay couple. You may have no problem with that either - just clarifying the apparent scope of the law.

I dont' think so. See the clause:"...related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Not sure common carriers can do this constitutionally, but it seems kind of clear why they're passing the law.

Like I said, it's vague. But I think you're missing the "related to marriage" clause, which is in addition to the "related to the celebration of marriage." Indeed, if the law was intended to be as narrow as you suggest, why would it cover counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services? You could be right, and the Kansas legislature is filled with people who suck at writing, but none of the articles I've read have viewed the law as narrowly as you do. You can read the entire law here:http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

Here's a statement by the bill's sponsor.

"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill. There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

Edit to add: based on the post above, it appears that the President of the Kansas Senate also views the scope of the law to cover a whole host of services (including police and fire services), not just cake makers and wedding caterers who don't want to do gay weddings.

 

[rockaction]

No problem with this. This stems from the lawsuits in other states over providing services for gay couples that want to be married, e.g., lawsuits against cake-makers, etc.

Doing it through legislation is probably stupid and tin-eared, but the suits in other states have been obnoxious, IMO. Compelling people to provide goods, services, and religious sacraments was never supposed to be part of the civic understanding about gay marriage.

It's a vaguely worded law, but it appears to go well beyond providing services in connection with gay weddings. It appears to protect the local diner that wants to put up a "no gay couples served here" sign in the window, or the individual waiter at an otherwise non-discriminatory diner who doesn't want to bring food out to a gay couple. You may have no problem with that either - just clarifying the apparent scope of the law.

I dont' think so. See the clause:"...related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Not sure common carriers can do this constitutionally, but it seems kind of clear why they're passing the law.

Like I said, it's vague. But I think you're missing the "related to marriage" clause, which is in addition to the "related to the celebration of marriage." Indeed, if the law was intended to be as narrow as you suggest, why would it cover counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services? You could be right, and the Kansas legislature is filled with people who suck at writing, but none of the articles I've read have viewed the law as narrowly as you do. You can read the entire law here:http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

Here's a statement by the bill's sponsor.

"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful ... It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill. There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

Edit to add: based on the post above, it appears that the President of the Kansas Senate also views the scope of the law to cover a whole host of services (including police and fire services), not just cake makers and wedding caterers who don't want to do gay weddings.

I think I also said that "this legislative wording may be much more problematic than that," which you didn't quote. :(

It seems to be so. And with that...I don't have much more to say.

Good work, Kansas?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

And because it would give public employees the right to discriminate against gays, the bill is now on hold.

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 Senates president, poured cold water on its prospects Thursday night when she released a statement saying that a majority of her caucus opposed the bills 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 whos vulnerable, any age, any race, any sexual orientation.

Public service needs to remain public service for the entire public, she added.

Holy ####, there's a Republican in Kansas that has a f###ing brain! Who knew?

 

[ChiefD]

I, and a lot of people, #####ed at our representatives en masse. This thing will probably get killed.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

How would a person know if a someone was gay or not? Do they have to be in a number of 2 or more to refuse service a pack? Can a person refuse to serve 1 gay person lone wolf?

 

[fatness]

How would a person know if a someone was gay or not? Do they have to be in a number of 2 or more to refuse service a pack? Can a person refuse to serve 1 gay person lone wolf?

I don't think it depends on whether someone's gay or not. It seems to depend more on whether the person providing the service believes they're gay, or believes they support gay partnerships or marriage or "similar arrangement" and calls that belief "religious".

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

© treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

No problem with this. This stems from the lawsuits in other states over providing services for gay couples that want to be married, e.g., lawsuits against cake-makers, etc.

Doing it through legislation is probably stupid and tin-eared, but the suits in other states have been obnoxious, IMO. Compelling people to provide goods, services, and religious sacraments was never supposed to be part of the civic understanding about gay marriage.

It's a vaguely worded law, but it appears to go well beyond providing services in connection with gay weddings. It appears to protect the local diner that wants to put up a "no gay couples served here" sign in the window, or the individual waiter at an otherwise non-discriminatory diner who doesn't want to bring food out to a gay couple. You may have no problem with that either - just clarifying the apparent scope of the law.

I don't think so. See the clause:"...related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Not sure common carriers can do this constitutionally, but it seems kind of clear why they're passing the law.

Regardless, I'm just irritated by couples suing bakers for not making them cakes. This legislative wording itself may be much more problematic than that. I just understand the impulse. It might even be, paradoxically, covering the legislature's ### when they pass civil unions or gay marriage in Kansas. Then they can point to the statute. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

And if we replaced same sex with black or interracial couples?

 

[tikigods]

Dorothy & Toto couldn't get out fast enough.

 

[rockaction]

No problem with this. This stems from the lawsuits in other states over providing services for gay couples that want to be married, e.g., lawsuits against cake-makers, etc.

Doing it through legislation is probably stupid and tin-eared, but the suits in other states have been obnoxious, IMO. Compelling people to provide goods, services, and religious sacraments was never supposed to be part of the civic understanding about gay marriage.

It's a vaguely worded law, but it appears to go well beyond providing services in connection with gay weddings. It appears to protect the local diner that wants to put up a "no gay couples served here" sign in the window, or the individual waiter at an otherwise non-discriminatory diner who doesn't want to bring food out to a gay couple. You may have no problem with that either - just clarifying the apparent scope of the law.

I don't think so. See the clause:"...related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Not sure common carriers can do this constitutionally, but it seems kind of clear why they're passing the law.

Regardless, I'm just irritated by couples suing bakers for not making them cakes. This legislative wording itself may be much more problematic than that. I just understand the impulse. It might even be, paradoxically, covering the legislature's ### when they pass civil unions or gay marriage in Kansas. Then they can point to the statute. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

And if we replaced same sex with black or interracial couples?

This is the equivalence of race and sexual orientation, which I don't find to be the same thing. I'm aware of the logical progression. We can argue this until we're blue in the face, and I'd say our nation's history of slavery is different. Andrew Sullivan would probably disagree.

Does the Interstate Commerce Clause or state and federal Equal Protection laws reach gay weddings and services provided? Not sure. That's why they're going to the courts. I also darn well know that the thought of getting slapped with lawsuits against sole proprietors, etc., would have swung the debate a little, and the activists who were presented with the question sort of assured people that it wouldn't.

It's the same thing with med marijuana and full-on legalization (both of which I vehemently support). But the med marijuana activists long argued that decriminalization or legalization wasn't their goal, and it turned out to be false. My point is not anything other than how political activists work. Small victories and slippery slopes abound.

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

 

[fatness]

Dorothy & Toto couldn't get out fast enough.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

How would a person know if a someone was gay or not? Do they have to be in a number of 2 or more to refuse service a pack? Can a person refuse to serve 1 gay person lone wolf?

Customer: Hello, I would like to purchase a cake with lots of rainbows on it, along with the inscription "Steven & Esteban: Together Forever". It's for a church bake sale.

 

[bigbottom]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

 

[rockaction]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

 

[bigbottom]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

I get your point. You don't like the handful of individual lawsuits against wedding cake makers and reception caterers. That's fair. But you also assert that state-wide legislation seeking to protect the right of businesses and governmental entities to discriminate against and refuse to provide services to same sex couples (including government services that such couples pay for through their taxes) as "pulling the same ####, just on the other side." This isn't anywhere close to pulling the same ####, at least according to my worldview.

Again, I understand your criticism of compelling a religiously devout woman who bakes cakes to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple through the application of a state's anti-discrimination laws. But what happened in the Kansas legislature is so much broader than that narrow issue that raising it as an issue in a discussion of the law seems off the mark. But again, I get your point.

Also, "places of public accommodation" is probably a more descriptive term than "common carrier" for the businesses that you are trying to describe.

 

[rockaction]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

I get your point. You don't like the handful of individual lawsuits against wedding cake makers and reception caterers. That's fair. But you also assert that state-wide legislation seeking to protect the right of businesses and governmental entities to discriminate against and refuse to provide services to same sex couples (including government services that such couples pay for through their taxes) as "pulling the same ####, just on the other side." This isn't anywhere close to pulling the same ####, at least according to my worldview.

Again, I understand your criticism of compelling a religiously devout woman who bakes cakes to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple through the application of a state's anti-discrimination laws. But what happened in the Kansas legislature is so much broader than that narrow issue that raising it as an issue in a discussion of the law seems off the mark. But again, I get your point.

Also, "places of public accommodation" is probably a more descriptive term than "common carrier" for the businesses that you are trying to describe.

True. My bad. Been a while. I did think common carriers included hotels -- and also restaurants that belong to the proprietors of those restaurants, but I could be wrong. I'm not totally sure I am.

As for your first point, it's about the nature of activism, be it legislative or pressure politics. I think the legislature took a legitimate concern and broadened it so badly that it's a lot like political pressure activism and slippery slopes.

But you're also missing a point of mine: I don't understand how you excuse government employees from doing their job by substitution, etc. I never, ever agreed with government entities being able to do this. You're missing my point on that. I think in post fourteen, I expressed my disagreement with the bill, especially because of this.

I think we agree on more than you think, actually.

 

[Aerial Assault]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

I get your point. You don't like the handful of individual lawsuits against wedding cake makers and reception caterers. That's fair. But you also assert that state-wide legislation seeking to protect the right of businesses and governmental entities to discriminate against and refuse to provide services to same sex couples (including government services that such couples pay for through their taxes) as "pulling the same ####, just on the other side." This isn't anywhere close to pulling the same ####, at least according to my worldview.

Again, I understand your criticism of compelling a religiously devout woman who bakes cakes to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple through the application of a state's anti-discrimination laws. But what happened in the Kansas legislature is so much broader than that narrow issue that raising it as an issue in a discussion of the law seems off the mark. But again, I get your point.

Also, "places of public accommodation" is probably a more descriptive term than "common carrier" for the businesses that you are trying to describe.

Indeed. Common carriers are companies/persons that transport people or cargo for set rates and usually at set times. Hotels and restaurants are decidedly not common carriers.

 

[rockaction]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

I get your point. You don't like the handful of individual lawsuits against wedding cake makers and reception caterers. That's fair. But you also assert that state-wide legislation seeking to protect the right of businesses and governmental entities to discriminate against and refuse to provide services to same sex couples (including government services that such couples pay for through their taxes) as "pulling the same ####, just on the other side." This isn't anywhere close to pulling the same ####, at least according to my worldview.

Again, I understand your criticism of compelling a religiously devout woman who bakes cakes to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple through the application of a state's anti-discrimination laws. But what happened in the Kansas legislature is so much broader than that narrow issue that raising it as an issue in a discussion of the law seems off the mark. But again, I get your point.

Also, "places of public accommodation" is probably a more descriptive term than "common carrier" for the businesses that you are trying to describe.

Indeed. Common carriers are companies/persons that transport people or cargo for set rates and usually at set times. Hotels and restaurants are decidedly not common carriers.

"Common carriers have historically come in many flavors: roadhouses (hotels), trucks, trains,telegraph networks, postal services, and telephone networks."

http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmca.htm

I could have sworn. I could also be dead wrong.

eta* Also, this...http://books.google.com/books?id=ZvwXKFcL-74C&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=common+carriers,+roadhouses&source=bl&ots=I4G1HzRHUn&sig=TpIxtLmCSguUZf68seEX6-xZOHc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TDQBU_enLMPsyQH_3YDADQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=common%20carriers%2C%20roadhouses&f=false

Oh, it's under the rubric of public accomodations. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Aerial Assault]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

I get your point. You don't like the handful of individual lawsuits against wedding cake makers and reception caterers. That's fair. But you also assert that state-wide legislation seeking to protect the right of businesses and governmental entities to discriminate against and refuse to provide services to same sex couples (including government services that such couples pay for through their taxes) as "pulling the same ####, just on the other side." This isn't anywhere close to pulling the same ####, at least according to my worldview.

Again, I understand your criticism of compelling a religiously devout woman who bakes cakes to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple through the application of a state's anti-discrimination laws. But what happened in the Kansas legislature is so much broader than that narrow issue that raising it as an issue in a discussion of the law seems off the mark. But again, I get your point.

Also, "places of public accommodation" is probably a more descriptive term than "common carrier" for the businesses that you are trying to describe.

Indeed. Common carriers are companies/persons that transport people or cargo for set rates and usually at set times. Hotels and restaurants are decidedly not common carriers.

"Common carriers have historically come in many flavors: roadhouses (hotels), trucks, trains,telegraph networks, postal services, and telephone networks."

http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmca.htm

I could have sworn. I could also be dead wrong.

Sometimes the FCC/communications regulators have used the term, but it seems to be an artifact and rarely if ever seen now. I was surprised by your link, all the more so if it was recent.

In the past it was usually "innkeepers and common carriers" lumped in for liability purposes. But as BB says, I think the term you want in this context is "place of public accommodation."

 

[rockaction]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

I get your point. You don't like the handful of individual lawsuits against wedding cake makers and reception caterers. That's fair. But you also assert that state-wide legislation seeking to protect the right of businesses and governmental entities to discriminate against and refuse to provide services to same sex couples (including government services that such couples pay for through their taxes) as "pulling the same ####, just on the other side." This isn't anywhere close to pulling the same ####, at least according to my worldview.

Again, I understand your criticism of compelling a religiously devout woman who bakes cakes to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple through the application of a state's anti-discrimination laws. But what happened in the Kansas legislature is so much broader than that narrow issue that raising it as an issue in a discussion of the law seems off the mark. But again, I get your point.

Also, "places of public accommodation" is probably a more descriptive term than "common carrier" for the businesses that you are trying to describe.

Indeed. Common carriers are companies/persons that transport people or cargo for set rates and usually at set times. Hotels and restaurants are decidedly not common carriers.

"Common carriers have historically come in many flavors: roadhouses (hotels), trucks, trains,telegraph networks, postal services, and telephone networks."

http://www.cybertelecom.org/ip/dmca.htm

I could have sworn. I could also be dead wrong.

Sometimes the FCC/communications regulators have used the term, but it seems to be an artifact and rarely if ever seen now. I was surprised by your link, all the more so if it was recent.

In the past it was usually "innkeepers and common carriers" lumped in for liability purposes. But as BB says, I think the term you want in this context is "place of public accommodation."

BB seems to be correct, as are you. Especially in the context of Con Law and civil rights, I guess. Thanks again for clarifying. Learn something new every day. More clarity is nice.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

eta* much like the wording of this legislation. Instead of merely protecting business and churches, they started to protect state service providers, and worded it vaguely, etc. They're pulling the same ####, just on the other side.

Merely protecting business? I think passing legislation to explicitly protect the right of restaurants, hotels, hospitals, etc. and other businesses otherwise open to the general public, along with individual employees of such businesses, to refuse to serve same-sex couples is pretty darn objectionable in its own right.

I think you're cherry picking my quotes.

It's pretty clear from the wording and tone of my argument that I'm dealing with sole proprietors and other businesses that don't want to support gay marriages and the celebrations relating thereto. I'm especially concerned about state coercion about religious sacraments and entanglement.

I already mentioned that protecting common carriers, and their refusal to serve gay people, is probably unconstitutional. It's a legal term. That includes hotels, restaurants, and others that fall into that category.

Where do hospitals fit into business?

I think we're really missing each other's worldview. I think I'm being clear; you don't think so. Not sure I want to write a treatise about not compelling businesses and religions to support or provide services to gay marriage ceremonies when they have religious objections.

I get your point. You don't like the handful of individual lawsuits against wedding cake makers and reception caterers. That's fair. But you also assert that state-wide legislation seeking to protect the right of businesses and governmental entities to discriminate against and refuse to provide services to same sex couples (including government services that such couples pay for through their taxes) as "pulling the same ####, just on the other side." This isn't anywhere close to pulling the same ####, at least according to my worldview.

Again, I understand your criticism of compelling a religiously devout woman who bakes cakes to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple through the application of a state's anti-discrimination laws. But what happened in the Kansas legislature is so much broader than that narrow issue that raising it as an issue in a discussion of the law seems off the mark. But again, I get your point.

Also, "places of public accommodation" is probably a more descriptive term than "common carrier" for the businesses that you are trying to describe.

The baker isn't performing any religious act though. She is baking a cake. It's a service that she provides the general public. She shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Should she be allowed to not bake a cake because she doesn't believe in inter-racial marriage, or she's anti-Semitic?

 

[fatness]

The baker isn't performing any religious act though. She is baking a cake. It's a service that she provides the general public. She shouldn't be allowed to discriminate. Should she be allowed to not bake a cake because she doesn't believe in inter-racial marriage, or she's anti-Semitic?

Religion used to be used to justify slavery and segregation. That won't fly any more of course, but now it's being used as cover for discriminating against gay people.

“[W]hite Bible readers understood the transgression as a violation of familial loyalty that marked Ham and his African descendants as utterly devoid of honor and thus fit for slavery.“

Social order was significant in that the differential stations of the races were perceived as being fundamental to the divinely mandated order for society — God separated the races and made one subservient to the other, so any attempts to change that were also attempts to defy God:

“In [Virginian George] Fitzhugh’s view [Fitzhugh being the most respected slavery apologist of the decades prior to the Civil War], abolitionists sought nothing less than the reorganization of American society. They wished “to abolish...or greatly modify, the relations of husband and wife, parent and child, the institution of private property of all kinds, but especially separate ownership of lands, and the institution of Christian churches as now existing in America.” If they are successful, Fitzhugh warned, government, law, religion, and marriage would be among the casualties. Just as abolitionists could not recognize the South apart from its support for human servitude, Fitzhugh perceived Northern social ills as by-products of a free society, whose principles were at war with “all government, all subordination, all order.” If slavery is wrong, he reasoned, then all human government is wrong.”

Well, that’s an awful lot of damage that abolition would cause, isn’t it? Nearly the same complaints were raised by opponents of civil rights. If you read the above carefully, you’ll also find that it bears remarkable similarity to the doom and gloom predictions of those who oppose same-sex marriage — a group which is not coincidentally based in the South. They, too, fear that the legalization of gay marriage will mean the end of social order as we know it.

If all that sounds contrary to basic American principles of liberty and democracy, you’d be right.

 

[ChiefD]

So here's a good one. My representative for the Kansas house voted for that bill.

I, and many others, posted on her Facebook page our displeasure for her vote and asked for an explanation. Today, I go and check, and she deleted everyone's comments who spoke out against her. Her constituents, by the way.

On top of that, she disabled the opportunity to post items on her page.

F'n coward. I don't typically get involved in politics, but I'm all in for the next election to get her out.

 

[Hilts]

So here's a good one. My representative for the Kansas house voted for that bill.

I, and many others, posted on her Facebook page our displeasure for her vote and asked for an explanation. Today, I go and check, and she deleted everyone's comments who spoke out against her. Her constituents, by the way.

On top of that, she disabled the opportunity to post items on her page.

F'n coward. I don't typically get involved in politics, but I'm all in for the next election to get her out.

Wow. I'm well aware this type of thing happens regularly with normal folk or random celebrities, but I find it very interesting an elected leader would pull that. Has any of the local media covered the story?

 

[ChiefD]

So here's a good one. My representative for the Kansas house voted for that bill.

I, and many others, posted on her Facebook page our displeasure for her vote and asked for an explanation. Today, I go and check, and she deleted everyone's comments who spoke out against her. Her constituents, by the way.

On top of that, she disabled the opportunity to post items on her page.

F'n coward. I don't typically get involved in politics, but I'm all in for the next election to get her out.

Wow. I'm well aware this type of thing happens regularly with normal folk or random celebrities, but I find it very interesting an elected leader would pull that. Has any of the local media covered the story?

Haven't seen anything yet about it. I'm not sure I'm the kind of guy to send something like that to the media, but that kind of stuff really pisses me off.

So I might. Lol

 

[SWC]

hey man same crap different era when you do not like a group and want to be prejudiced or bigoted you just say that god made me do it well hey gang i have news for you i do not think that god is up there saying hey brohans nice job on hating your nieghbor i think he is looking at guys twisting his words to increase hate and shaking his head and he is pretty disappointed and thinking man they have messed up the one one thing i gave them that i thought they would never mess up and that is love take that to teh bank brohans

 

[Johnny Rock]

hey man same crap different era when you do not like a group and want to be prejudiced or bigoted you just say that god made me do it well hey gang i have news for you i do not think that god is up there saying hey brohans nice job on hating your nieghbor i think he is looking at guys twisting his words to increase hate and shaking his head and he is pretty disappointed and thinking man they have messed up the one one thing i gave them that i thought they would never mess up and that is love take that to teh bank brohans

Some of your best work.

 

[fatness]

Arizona wants to be like Kansas and has approved a bill ready for the Governor to sign

In a nutshell:

SB1062 redefines and expands the state's definition of "exercise of religion" and "state action" to protect businesses, corporations and people from lawsuits after denying services based on a sincere religious belief. According to the bill, "A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or a defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."

Some people who voted in favor of it are realizing it was a bozo move.

A trio of Arizona state senators urged Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a controversial “religious freedom” bill on Monday, just days after all three cast votes in favor of the proposal that opponents say will legalize discrimination.

Worsley, R-Mesa, was more vociferous in his opposition of SB1062, and said some Republican lawmakers only voted for the bill for the good of the party. “I was uncomfortable, so was Steve (Pierce),” Worsley told the Arizona Capitol Times. “And we just felt that it was important to keep the caucus together this early in the session. And it was a mistake. We’re going on record that we made a mistake.”

Laws already on the books would protect people exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs, and SB1062 was “a solution in search of a problem,” Worsley said.There are “four or five” senators who would now vote differently on SB1062 if given the chance, Worsley said.

And apparently businesses are lining up to oppose the bill now due to the negative impact it'll have on Arizona's businesses.

Business groups in Arizona as well as the state’s U.S. senators have come out against the legislation. Apple, which is preparing to open a new manufacturing plant in the state, asked Brewer to veto the bill, as did American Airlines chief executive Doug Parker (who was chief executive of Arizona-based US Airways before that airline merged with American, which is based in Texas).

And one key point looms over the debate like a colossus that could be worth half a billion dollars for the state: Arizona is hosting the Super Bowl next year. Business groups are worried that the NFL championship game and its related events could face boycotts if the bill passes.

Arizona already lost one Super Bowl and I don't imagine they want to lose another one.

Awesome work, lawmakers!

 

[joffer]

If you're going on record a week after a vote admitting you made a mistake, I'd suggest you resign.

 

[bigbottom]

Can we change the thread title to Good work, Arizona?

 

[Zow]

Ive read the az bill and it's so ####### stupid. Accomplished nothing but making us look like bigoted hillbillies.

 

[omahawildcat25]

Private businesses have every right to decide who they want to serve and not serve, as it is a customers choice to go to a specific business. If a business not serving a specific group is troubling to people, I would suspect that business will not be around for very long.

 

[Zow]

Private businesses have every right to decide who they want to serve and not serve, as it is a customers choice to go to a specific business. If a business not serving a specific group is

troubling to people, I would suspect that business will not be around for very long.

You'd be correct to an extent. Except due to prior legislation and case law businesses cannot discriminate based on race or gender and haven't been able to do so for some time.

That said, it's ####### stupid to write a law confirming this.

 

[bigbottom]

Private businesses have every right to decide who they want to serve and not serve, as it is a customers choice to go to a specific business. If a business not serving a specific group is troubling to people, I would suspect that business will not be around for very long.

I think you forgot a "should" after "Private businesses," because many private businesses do not have the unqualified right to decide who they want to serve and not serve.

 

[joffer]

Dressing up discrimination as religion doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

ROCK CHALK GAYHAWK

 

[Mr. Ected]

If in Kansas, the state agencies would be able to chose who whom they were able to provide services, would those people who were denied services have to pay taxes that would have paid for those services?

 

[Dr Oadi]

Dressing up discrimination as religion doesn't change the fact that it's discrimination.

is discrimination some big sin in the 21rst century?