Discussions

Reader comments

On Hundreds protest 'religious freedoms' bill at Kansas Statehouse

Comments

William Enick 1 year, 2 months ago

Think this through... if passed, those businesses that refuse service to same-sex couples would be out of the business in a matter of days when the word got out. The business would be boycotted. The LGBT'S could then buy the business. It's a WIN / WIN scenario... end of story... close your browser.

MerriAnnie Smith 1 year, 2 months ago

They'd be in worse shape than just out of business, William.

They'd be breaking a Federal law. This bill the goons in the Kansas legislature want to put through is not constitutional. It won't hold up in a court. Therefore, the people who foolishly rely on it will be making a big mistake. They could be in legal trouble for it.

Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. That goes for Federal law as well as state law.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 1 year, 2 months ago

Right on!! The rational people of Kansas have voiced ther opposition to predudice, hatered, and discrimination that the billionaire Koch Regime Kansas Government is trying to codify into law. Brother Righteous Bob and Sister Bertha Better-Than-You will not stop this assault on decency, fairness and civility because of their hide-bound devotion to human created "religion" that some feel gives freedom to behave like total jerks.. This is just not right,

Jesus said, I believe, that we should "love one another", ?????

Clark Coan 1 year, 2 months ago

The wingnuts aren't done yet. They'll craft a bill that will pass constitutional muster (Equal Protection Clause) and focus on same-sex marriages and weddings and also allow religious organizations and entities such as the Salvation Army to deny employment or services.

MerriAnnie Smith 1 year, 2 months ago

That's a lawsuit waiting for a place to happen. Their law might sound great to these yahoos, but the businesses that rely on its constitutionality will get pretty tired by the time the Supreme Court finally tells them they broke the law.

I'm at the point that I'd like to see them do it; and I'd love to see redneck business owners all over Kansas act upon this travesty; and then I'll sit back and enjoy watching them fight it all the way to the Supreme Court - where the rednecks have an epic fail that they should have been smart enough to see coming when they relied on this eminently unethical legislature's push for one of the most hilariously stupid laws in the country.

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 2 months ago

I really don't think that words such as "goons","wingnut",yahoos", "redneck","hilariously stupid", contribute anything meaningful to the conversations that we should be having about this subject.

When I read a phrase such as "allow religious organizations and entities such as the Salvation Army to deny employment or services." I am perplexed because I see no reason why they should not do just that. The Salvation Army and churches are totally different than other places of employment and those who apply should be aware of that before they do so.

Now, I would expect a pharmacy to fill any prescription that is brought in because that is really none of the pharmacists business why the doctor prescribed it. I can't see a checker at a store refusing to check out someones purchases because they suspect their sexual orientation or overhead that they are of a different faith than they are.

All public services and that would include bakeries and caterers should be expected to abide by public law.

MerriAnnie Smith 1 year, 2 months ago

"I really don't think that words such as "goons","wingnut",yahoos", "redneck","hilariously stupid", contribute anything meaningful to the conversations that we should be having about this subject. "

Actually, Leslie, there was a great deal of meaning behind those words. You just don't wish to consider those meanings. That's your business.

Whining about how other people post because it's not what you would do is not just your business. It's mine, too.

Addie Line 1 year, 2 months ago

Sidenote to the above comment, I have had the Walgreens on 6th refuse to fill my RX because none of the pharmacists felt my doctor should have prescribed it to me. Evidently in their state guidelines they are permitted to decline to fill any prescription if they don't "feel comfortable" filling it. I was pregnant at the time and my Dr. had decided the risks associated with taking the med were smaller than the problems I would encounter without the medication. So I guess my point there is despite there being seemingly no reason for a pharmacist to refuse a script that a doctor has signed off on and weighed the risks/benefits of, they can do so already for whatever reason they want. I would not support any law that gives them even more license to refuse services to someone that their well being relies on.

Additionally just because you can't see someone discriminating doesn't mean it won't happen.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.