See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
I wonder if the lawsuits will hit before or after Brownback signs this piece of hate mongering trash. Does anyone know where one can go to see how they voted before the Journal comes out? I will be so very disappointed in my Rep if he has faltered and supported this crap. How much money will it cost the taxpayers in the long run before it is overturned in the courts? Stupid is as stupid does.
All I have to say is that if I am out somewhere and this happens it will be the last time I go to that establishment. Even if I hear about a place that does this. This is a joke.
let them deny jobs....that is discrimination and not allowed by federal law
If you find an establishment where this happens, just turn it over to "Social Media." That is YOUR right as a citizen.
Oh you can bet that I will
Then, sit back and watch as the Establishment owner claims THEY are being unfairly Targeted. ROFLMAO! This ought to be good!
Well..i don't go to those places anyway and now have an even better reason not to.
I practice a branch of Christianity that believes that brown-haired people are the spawn of Satan. In accordance with my religious freedom as outlined by this bill, I will no longer provide service to brown-haired people at my place of employment.
There are still religions that believe it's wrong for interracial couples to marry. Does that mean they should be able to cite those beliefs and deny someone housing, services or jobs?
Let's face facts. Haters gonna hate. Discrimination will still exist. But that doesn't mean we need to throw down a welcome mat and make it ok and legally protected for them to say, "We don't serve your kind here."
That was a pretty weak statement by Paul Davis. I guess I don't understand how people who believe in the Bible and God thinks it's OK to deny services to a gay person.
I do forgive him a bit. I think he has quite a lot more to say about it but this guy is also trying to get elected in a very red state, he is walking a pretty tight line. He already has the "Stop Brownback" votes, he needs to be careful. The majority of Kansans probably support what this bill "claims" to be, without understanding what it really means. Get him elected and we can start taking care of the damage.
Why do we need to keep electing people under false pretenses? Why don't these politicians grow some spines, say what they mean, do what they say, and we can all get on with living a more realistic life. The era of old-time religious ideology is fading fast; I'd rather vote for someone with some cajones, than one who panders to insanity.
I can't believe that our state is this backwards! It is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Our state government is a laughing stock. In one breath they are putting down a KU professor for his statement on the NRA and the next trying to make discrimination law. With Brownback and these idiots in charge this state is headed back to the stone age.
Discrimination was thrown out in the Martin Luther King Jr. civil rights movement in the early 60s.BROWNBACK AND THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE ARE BAD FOR KANSAS.
Wow. Hate disguised as discrimination disguised as legislation.
"I'm sorry, sir, but I cannot bring you any unleavened bread."
"But your ads say 'Unlimited Breadsticks.'"
"I said that I was sorry, sir."
Leavened bread. Oh well. hangs head in internet shame
pats we appreciate the effort.
No one has a right to do business with someone else.
This is an incorrect statement.
More accurately - everyone has the right to not be discriminated against.
And yet people are legally discriminated against every day. If it is a right not be be discriminated against then how does the government and businesses get away with it?
Everyone has the right not to be murdered, and yet people are legally murdered every day; how does the government and businesses get away with it?
Just because something happens, doesn't mean it is not a right or that it okay.
This seems to be a common tactic for you, asking inane questions in response to something either you do not understand, or to try not to actually say anything because you know how it will sound when spoken out loud and you try to find a way to infer it (badly).
Seth please provide me an example where people are legally murdered everyday by the government. Murder by definition is an illegal act so I don't see how you'll be able to back up your statement but hey, take a shot at it.
Seth if you don't like my posts then pass right by them. No none compels you to read them or respond to them. Your obsession with me seems a little strange considering you think my questions are inane.
Can't wait to find out how the government legally murders everyday. Lol
Only if you are an absolute literalist do you believe murder is inherently illegal. It also means you probably miss a lot of things in life and why you have a hard time understanding what is going on in relation to this proposal.
Several parts of our government still institute a death penalty, our soldiers (all government employees) routinely commit murder on foreign soil with the support and protection of our government, our government provides protections for corporations which have been the cause of death of hundreds of thousands of individuals through starvation, restricting water access, denial of medical supplies when needed, or good old-fashioned strong arm slaughter.
Again as a literalist you could say that our government is merely and 'accessory' to murder, or that some of these killings are not murder because they were legal kills according to OUR government, rather than the government of the country they happen to be in.
If you couldn't wait to find this information out, you could have taken a few moments to do a little research and learn about it yourself, but I'm going to assume this is another dishonest statement from you as you probably will refuse to learn from this information and will continue to repeat yourself.
I would pass by your posts, it is the duty of those who are members of any community to point out with other members are dishonest or distribute misinformation on a regular basis and expect to be taken seriously. If someone attempts to take a platform to offer an opinion as an (incorrect) fact, it is the responsibility of those who hear the opinion and share the platform to correct such statements.
Now, while you have managed to use yet another attempt at distraction from the actual discussion, and failed to answer a question posed directly you, you have at least shown you cannot be taken seriously.
The point still remains - people have the right not to be discriminated against.
I thought we were in the 21st Century, Oh wait this is Kansas, the land of going back 150 years. It;s .Time for those who know where this is going on to Boycott these places.
“To be really mediæval one should have no body. To be really modern one should have no soul. To be really Greek one should have no clothes.”
― Oscar Wilde, Complete Works of Oscar Wilde
Is it not self-evident that the state has an obligation to protect the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of people from being infringed by other people? This bill would make it legal for people to withhold food, living quarters, and other services necessary for these basic rights, solely on the basis of religious beliefs. (How would you distinguish a religious belief from any other belief?)
This has been tried before and it has been struck down before. Both Davis and Meade are correct; this bill is both a waste of time and morally reprehensible.
Yes the state has to protect the rights of people from being infringed by other people but you are confused as to what that means. I cannot steal from you, I cannot harass you and I cannot murder you but I have no obligation as an individual nor do you have a right for me to provide for your liberty, life or happiness. You're on your own.
You have no right for me to sell you goods or to provide services to you. You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness but these while these rights are not to be infringed they are not required to be provide by individuals. The government perhaps, but not by individuals.
Good bill. I hope it passes the Senate.
So, in your world, it is not OK for a group of people to shoot someone, but it is OK for them to withhold food that person would otherwise be able to purchase the same as everyone else. Is a person who starves to death any less dead than a person who is shot?
Under this bill, the group that refused to sell the food would be held blameless.
What if all land owners in a community decide that they don't want to do business with a mixed race married couple, and the couple ends up homeless, even though they could afford to pay the same price as everyone else for lodging. Would you say that their rights have not been infringed?
What if what if....we can what if anything to death.
Individuals have no responsibility for your life. The government does, but not individuals.
I see someone going to shoot you I can walk right on by, but a policeman has the responsibility to try and stop your murder.
Quit feeling entitled. You're not.
As for your what if, Chris who is a smart businessman will step in and provide food and services to those denied by the ignorant bigots.
That last was a yes-or-no question. Can you give an answer?
Yes, we can do what-if to death, but you'll only do it so long as it's once and it gets to benefit you in a conversation.
Seth your obsession with me is creepy.
Students who are the least informed and have the hardest time learning benefit the most from additional attention from teachers or those who can help. So many of my posts wouldn't be in responses to yours if they weren't all so filled with misinformation and ignorance, or if you learned from people when they speak to you.
It's a simple principle. In matters that only affect you, you are free to be as prejudiced as you like, but in matters of business that affect others, your discrimination puts others at a disadvantage that is bad for the market and worse for the affected people.
100% agreed, one person's right to avoid people who don't have the same lifestyle that they do clearly trumps another person's right to get what they need to survive.
Unfortunately, my holy book states quite clearly that people named Brock are living in sin and are unclean; therefore you are not welcome in my establishment.
I am okay with it. I won't patronize your establishment. Others will be happy to have my business.
At least until you find out that 90% of all businesses also follow his book.
Brock - What if there is no other business to patronize? Maybe I'm confused but is this like Obamacare were the businesses are split by employee number? Mom and pops can discriminate but not if you have over 50 employees? If not, can a privately held power company say it won't provide power to the homes or businesses of gay people even though there is no other power company from which to buy power? I guess they could always go out and buy a generator, that is if the gas station will sell them anything to put in it. What about a privately held water company? Can the water company say we will provide water to a dance club but not a gay bar? Can they refuse the dance club if they feel dancing is against their religion? Can the only gas station, store, or diner within 100 miles refuse service because someone looks a little too light in their loafers? Do they have to have proof of gayness or is wearing a pink shirt enough to prove a guy is gay? If no proof of being gay is needed then isn't it just an I don't like the way they look law. What distance does it become an unreasonable distance to travel to find the "others". I see how your theory works in the middle of a large town or city but what about in sparsely populated areas of the state. If a lesbian gets a flat tire in Greely County is OK to discriminate because there is a tire shop in Douglas County that will fix her tire? How far should she have to walk to find a shop that is OK with her lifestyle? The ability for someone to come in and open a shop does not constitute access. Say I want to set up a tire place in Greely county to service that road weary lesbian is OK for the other businesses to not do business with me because I provide services to people they do not agree with? I don't think anyone could sustain a bussiness to cater only to the occasional gay or lesbian with car trouble in western Kansas?
While they're at it, let's get separate drinking fountains for 'em.
And bathrooms too while we are at it...give me a break
Don't we already have separate bathrooms based on gender which is a protected class?
This has nothing to do with religious freedom it is all about discriminating.
This law is a clear violation of the establishment clause. It will be struck down the first time someone sues the state over it.
What religion does it establish?
It establishes that the same act which would be illegal if done for non-religious reasons will be legal if a person says their religion told them to do it.
Care to answer my question from earlier?
That isn't what the establishment clause is about.
I answered your question. Just not the way you like.
No, it is not really about that, but do you really want the US to start making laws based on religious beliefs?
I missed it; was that a 'yes' or a 'no'?
I certainly don't want laws based on religious beliefs. This law isn't. It protects the free exercise of religion which I do support.
I like the law because it pushes back against the notion that the government has the authority to tell me who I have to associate with and do business with.
"This law isn't. "
By what contortion of logic do you believe that? It specifically states that acts, which would otherwise be illegal, would be legal dependent on the perpetrator's religious beliefs.
Tell me what religious tenet corresponds to the law. There isn't one.
The first amendment protects religion but isn't based on religion. Same thing here.
It says that any and all religious tenants regarding sex or gender supercede law. Are you saying that there are no such tenants?
I'm going to need an answer to my question to continue this discussion. It is hard to argue with someone unwilling to define their position.
Other groups I have a religious right to refuse include Muslims, people wearing 40%/60% acrylic pants, people with too many chromosomes, people whose eyes are two different colors, Mizzou fans, people wearing rhinestones, French people, anyone over the age of 77, people who don't think jasmine tea is the best tea, members of the House of Representatives, optometrists, Mormons, and anyone who has touched an eggroll in the past 13 1/2 hours.
I can provide relevant scriptural passages from my holy book upon request!
I can understand some peoples frustration with Paul Davis comments regarding this bill but keep in mind this is Kansas and he is currently running for Governor in a HYPER conservative state. If you are at all familiar with Kansas Politics you will understand the line he is treading.
Are you saying Paul was not genuine in his comments and was trying to cater to conservatives? Isn't that less than honest?
I'm sorry, did you just say you expect all politicians to be entirely open with all their thoughts? Can you name any that ever have?
Jimmy Carter was pretty honest. Many in the KS legislature. Marcie Fransico, Tom Sloan, maybe atom Holland too. New one there Dr. Gandhi.
Sorry I can't add Davis to the list now.
I like Jimmy Carter and think he is a great person (not sure if he was the most effective president), but I think you are delusional if you think he did not keep some things close to his chest.
Did you forget his I've lusted in my heart. Chris admit it you are wrong on this. There are some honest politicians.
I didn't say that at all, but you are welcome to infer what you like. I am stating that he is catering to the masses. If he was catering to conservatives he would have said something completely bombastic with no base in reality because that's what conservatives respond best to.
Wouldn't it be easier to just have homosexuals wear a rainbow star, the Jews a yellow star, Muslims a crescent, and atheists and agnostics could have a different colored "A". Oh wait, its been done already.
I was thinking a window sticker on stores that planned to discriminate would be helpful. I do like to be an informed consumer.
I'm not sure what problem this legislation was trying to solve. Do our representatives have some financial interesting in selling more "Kansas as bigoted as you think" bumper stickers?
Ah yes, the Koch Regime Kansas Government is foremost in advocating prejudice and bigotry in the state of Bleeding Kansas. I sincerely hope that some court will quickly void yet another facist law that our addled legislators have cobbled up.
"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
Let's bring this point to the front. This bill specifically says that, even if would otherwise be illegal, a person's religious beliefs would make certain acts legal. In other words, religious beliefs trump law. Is there anyone who really thinks this is a good idea?
Well, Besides the Kansas Discriminature, er, I mean Legislature...Oh..Maybe.. The Taliban?
While I agree, there is a slight difference in that the Taliban would make their religious beliefs into law; this merely says that laws are unenforceable if a person says that they have religious beliefs which run against the laws.
Point taken. I was just going with the "Religious beliefs trump Law" statement. If given the chance, though, I believe the current Administration Would make their Religious beliefs into Law. They have tried many times already. The Constitution has prevailed so far, but they keep trying.
Ask their mentors, the Original Taliban.
How do you know that a couple of same sex involved in a marriage ceremony is homosexual any more than you can tell that a couple of opposite sex involved in a marriage ceremony is heterosexual unless you can look into their heart, mind, and soul. Discrimination at it's finest Kansas. For the first time in my life, I am ashamed to say I was born and raised here. Marriage is nothing more than a legally binding agreement, unless it's blessed in a church. I was raised Catholic so that's what I know but I know that a marriage will not be performed in the church if the couple is not in compliance with the Catholic church. I'm sure other religions are not that different so to make a law of this nature has nothing to do with religious beliefs and this pretence is false. If someone is in the business to perform weddings, I guess they will have to change, as businesses to when the laws change, just like every other business has to, or go out of business. If it's not a church, it's a BUSINESS. Hence, separation of church and state.
Look up this word: Tergiversation. Explains it all.
"The Kansas House on Wednesday approved a bill that says people can cite religious beliefs to deny to same-sex couples goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits."
How will same sex couples be determined? Does Sam ALEC Brownback and the ALEC legislature have guidelines?
This legislation is backed by ignorance.
If people in Kansas do not know by what their state GOP represents they never will. Which begs the question why vote GOP ever again? The majority of the GOP is controlled by ALEC.
The very few actual GOP that ALEC has yet to replace could suffer at the voting booths if Kansas wised up and quit voting GOP blindly.
Frankly ALEC does not support the GOP,Democrats or Women and the state of Kansas CANNOT afford ALEC.
John Birch Society Celebrates Koch Family For Their Role In Founding The Hate Group
United States of ALEC
ALEC – The Voice of Corporate Special Interests in State Legislatures
ALEX EXPOSED – The Koch Connection
There is no rewriting of this ignorant homophobic legislation. It goes in the trash.
Remember this is the same party and leadership that consistently supports tax cuts for the Kansas 1% and votes against public education. Yes that is Susan Wagle absolutely!
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·