Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, April 26, 2012

Protesters say bill would allow discrimination against gays, lesbians

April 26, 2012

Advertisement

— About 70 people on Thursday protested legislation that they said would allow people to cite religious beliefs to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

"It's legislative abuse, it's legislative bullying, it's legislative dictatorship and it should not be permitted," said civil rights attorney Pedro Irigonegaray.

C.J. Brune of Lawrence protested at the Capitol on Thursday against a bill that she said would allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

C.J. Brune of Lawrence protested at the Capitol on Thursday against a bill that she said would allow discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Senate Bill 142 is called the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act. Supporters say it is needed to prevent government from forcing a person to violate their religious beliefs. It was approved last month by the House on a 91-33 vote and is pending before the Senate.

Opponents of the bill say it will invite discrimination and invalidate a Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation.

"The city of Lawrence stands as a shining example that we can do better," Irigonegaray said.

The rally was put together by the Kansas Equality Coalition. Thomas Witt, executive director of the coalition, urged those at the rally to get involved in the August primaries to help candidates who oppose such proposals.

C.J. Brune of Lawrence attended the rally, and said, "I can't imagine living in a worse world where someone's religion would impact my rights."

Taylor Harris of Hutchinson said, "They're trying to make it legal to discriminate."

Holly Weatherford, with the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, said, "We cannot allow the use of religion to discriminate and call it religious freedom. We must push back."

The bill would prohibit state and local governments from substantially burdening a person’s religious beliefs unless the government can prove that the burden is advancing a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive way of advancing that interest.

The measure is supported by Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration, the Kansas Catholic Conference and Concerned Women for America of Kansas. It was opposed by Lawrence officials, the Kansas Equality Coalition and the state chapter of the National Organization for Women.

Comments

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

I find this appropriate here. "“In ‘The Maypole of Merry Mount,’ ” I said, “some people having a fun party in the woods are disrupted by the Puritans, who consider them immoral. Both groups have come to America in search of ‘freedom.’ The Merry Mounters interpret ‘freedom’ as sexual and individual freedom, the Puritans as freedom to practice their own religion while outlawing the behavior of others. This fight is still going on in America: the same issues come up in every election. In my novel ‘The Handmaid’s Tale,’ ” I added modestly, “I’ve included them as ‘freedom to’ and ‘freedom from.’ ” " http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/hello-martians-this-is-america.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=all

This is an article in the New York Times by Margaret Atwood, the author of "The Handmaid's Tale", which was short listed for the Booker Prize. Trust me, you should read it. The "Maypole of Merry Mount" is a short story by Nathaniel Hawthorn. I realize there will be slack jawed mouth breathers on this board that have never read Hawthorn and will refuse to do so. That's ok. Their loss.

0

booyalab 1 year, 11 months ago

"They're trying to make it legal to discriminate."

It's funny how this is seen as a "gotcha" statement. I think liberals believe they have latched on to some secret agenda when ever they catch a glimmer of truth. The concept of not hiding motivation is foreign to them. And do you want to know some other secrets? We believe that the law discriminates all the time. We believe in the dictionary definition of discrimination, not the "being mean to special people" definition. We also believe that homosexuality is not like race. So there you have it, our massive conspiracy revealed!

0

Armored_One 1 year, 11 months ago

I remember, when I was younger, watching footage of the riots and assaults that accompanied the Civil Rights Movement. I openly admit that it was an incredibly diverse and complicated subject, but a quick summary could easily be:

"A great number of people, for a very long time, were denied the rights and privledges that were accorded people born in the same country, for reasons that were not only subjective, but also biased against something that they had no true control over in the first place."

Or, the shorter version:

"Those that were not black refused to give the rights that they had to those that were black, simply because they were black."

Much the same thing could be said of the Equal Rights Amendment, although that wasn't based on color, but instead was based on the principle of inequality between men and women, or at least that was the perception back then.

Here we are now, the marches continue.

The prejudice continues.

The refusal to acknowledge simple, human rights continues.

Using religion as a shield to defend yourself from accusations of inhumanity is about as cowardly as any other atrocity committed int eh history of humanity when it comes to the basic principle of whether or not people are equal.

Yes, there are some people that are smarter than the vast majority. Stronger. Faster.

The inverse is just as true.

All men are created equal.

Either we are equal, or the people that wrote those words, and fought for the right to put them down on paper, so to speak, are wrong. But if they are wrong, then none of our rights are rights so much as they are given privledges that are subject to the whims and wishes of the masses that surround us.

The mob may commit murder with impunity. The mob can rape at will.

The individual must supercede those things, and there are no larger mobs anywhere in this world than those that insist on forcing archaic religious dogma down our proverbial throats.

Freedon of religion has to come with freedom from religion, otherwise, it simply becomes a breeding ground for hatred hiding behind a book.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

At least this way there would be an incentive to not eat that way. With Obamacare you don’t have to pay for anything…..be as fat and as unhealthy as you want. Lipitor is thanking Obama in the form of campaign donations.

0

Paul R Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

You know it occurred to me, if this passes, it could become part of the effort to make America healthy again and we could fold it into the health plans. Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Devout Christians might refuse to serve fatties at the burger joints because it's against their religion. Might just work, and increase salad sales for the Arch Club. It's a thought. Discussion?

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

How do you feel about this statement below?

Human rights are commonly understood as "inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

No, the law doesn’t end at my door step. When a crime has been committed on your property it should be prosecuted. I have no problem with 10 people in a single bedroom apartment and torturing an animal is a felony. What is it about….. do as I wish on my property as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others do you not get?

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

That’s why my comment above says it’s not really a religious issue. The powers that be want to take that route……there’s a better way. Property rights.

0

aryastark1984 1 year, 11 months ago

I am formally proposing that we rename senate bill 142 the Westborough Baptist Church endorsement law. This law codifies the bizarre rationale of this fringe group namely "Our religion entitles us to be as discriminatory and disruptive as we want because we have a really good reason."

So, if you think this is a really good idea than I suggest you stop and think about how it feels to share a logic system with Fred Phelps.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

This law really should be about property rights and not religious edict. My house is my property. I can do with it whatever I wish so long as I don’t infringe on the rights of others. The protection of this right is very important because it protects all people. It is absolute (or should be) and allows for all to live how they want to live. Private property rights should protect us against the illegal anti-sodomy laws and others that try to govern behavior that does not violate the rights of others. I can be a racist, bigot, or whatever I want.

Let’s move on to my personal business. Is it private or public? It is or should be private. It should be no different than my home. The fact that the general public may or may not want to frequent my establishment does not make it a public place. I own it, I pay the property tax, and I’m responsible for it. The general public has no requirement to set foot on my property it’s entirely by choice. This goes for all private businesses. Any laws that exist that view my property otherwise are a violation of my rights. The fact that they are law means I have to follow them but it doesn’t make it right. If you get into an automobile accident in the Hy-Vee parking lot don’t call the police. They have no responsibility to determine fault, unless a crime has been committed. DUI comes to mind. Law enforcement views this as a private property issue as it should. This whole migration from my property - my right – use as I wish without infringement on others- to its current state is a major violation of my rights as a property owner. The right of the property owner to do with his property as he wishes is far more important than the desires of others. It is your desire to rent from me. I don’t have to (or shouldn’t have to) rent to you. If you don’t like it find a different place.

This approach is hard for some to swallow. They think that it will immediately return us to a bigoted society which is entirely not true. This approach protects everyone on both sides. Gay’s shouldn’t be required to rent to straights or people like Fred Phelps. The empowerment you have as a property owner allows you to refuse your product to the very people that despise you. As a business owner if I saw Fred’s corpse walk into my place of business I’d fire his broken bones right to the curb. Looking to the law to solve bigotry doesn’t work. It just forces people to co-exist without reconciling their bigotry. In fact I would argue that it makes it worse. We need to allow ourselves to evolve racially etc. voluntarily not by force. The civil rights act is a perfect example. It didn’t do anything to improve race relations. It forced a bunch of racists to serve people that they hated. They closed up their shop then lynched the person they had to serve. The social and cultural change came from the people and the communities. It was our social enlightenment that improved race relations……the same will be with homosexuality.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

When the government takes them away from you.

0

Armored_One 1 year, 11 months ago

It's easily summed up.

At what point does an American citizen lose the given rights that they were given at birth?

0

Clara Westphal 1 year, 11 months ago

I will be glad when being 'gay' isn't the in thing anymore.

0

Joe Hyde 1 year, 11 months ago

Senate Bill 142 goes far beyond allowing discrimination; if enacted it will guarantee discrimination. The bill pretends to "protect religion" but really is an effort to legalize hate crime.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 11 months ago

Worship of the God Property Rights is also a religion.

0

weiser 1 year, 11 months ago

As long as I get free stuff from Obama, I don't care what happens to anybody else!

0

Abdu Omar 1 year, 11 months ago

No matter how you look at this bill, it is not good for the people of Kansas or anyother state, period.

0

Richard Heckler 1 year, 11 months ago

"C.J. Brune of Lawrence protested at the Capitol on Thursday against a bill that she said would allow discrimination against gays and lesbians."

It's always encouraging to see citizens exercising their rights to question congressional authority by exercising the right to protest. Thank you C.J. Brune.

Government wanting to legalize discrimination is obviously a government that citizens should not trust. Of course it's the the New GOP party sponsored by ALEC.

ALEC currently claims more than 250 corporations and special interest groups as private sector members. While the organization refuses to make a complete list of these private members available to the public, some known members include:

  • Wal-Mart
  • Exxon Mobil
  • the Corrections Corporation of America
  • AT&T
  • Pfizer Pharmaceuticals
  • Time Warner Cable
  • Comcast
  • Verizon
  • Phillip Morris International
  • Koch Industries
  • along with a host of right-wing think tanks and foundations.
0

Jason Bowers-Chaika 1 year, 11 months ago

It should be noted that Lawrence's exercise of home rule is at stake. Proponents of smaller, local government should oppose SB142. It would erode Lawrence's ability to govern itself as those locally elected officials who directly answer to the voters in Lawrence see fit.

In addition, the person who although heterosexual who fits someone else's stereotype of what a gay person looks like will be at risk for being fired, not hired, evicted because someone thinks they are gay. Don't poo poo this one as there is a documented case of a heterosexual teacher being canned because his homophobic Bible wacker administrator thought he was gay. This type of discrimination harms the community as a whole. A whole segment of the population is shunned out of the prospective employee pool. The town get's the reputation of that of an intolerant environment for those that don't conform. One of the factors leading to Lawrence's success is it's tolerant reputation. Discrimination is bad for business and economic development. Opposing SB142 just makes sense. Religious freedoms are already protected.

0

Jimo 1 year, 11 months ago

Commerce is not the exercise of anyone's religion.

Just how much poorer and more backward are Kansans willing to take this state? The only reason Kansas hasn't fallen behind Mississippi is because they're swimming even harder.

0

FalseHopeNoChange 1 year, 11 months ago

I think we need to follow The Flexible Obama's, Al Armendariz, and "crucify" someone or at least, threaten "crucifixion".

A "civil" dialog that only a "Liberal" can communicate is the only way to solve this.

0

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 11 months ago

Anybody else having flashbacks to the miscegenation, segregation and apartheid laws of the 1940's -1950's?

0

reality_check79 1 year, 11 months ago

If people would focus on the 4 things in life every human must do, the world would be a better place... NUMBER 1. Wake up and do your business.... NUMBER 2. Go to work.... NUMBER 3. Pay taxes.... NUMBER 4. Leave people the heck alone.... I dont care if your gay, straight, or fart skittles if you can go to work and pay taxes without breaking the law the your good in my book... If we can protest, can we protest the waste of tax dollars and time spent arguing petty issues... May of gotten off point but oh well, maybe they can pass legislation to have their heads removed from their uhhhhh yeah that spot.... Have a wonderful evening...

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 11 months ago

You may want them and you may want it to be so, but absolute property rights simply do not exist.

You cannot do whatever you wish with your property, or do whatever you wish on your property. This is reality.

You can rage all you want about absolute property rights, but they do not exist nor have they ever.

To guarantee your freedom, the best solution is to not rent out your property if you do not want gays or whites or libertarians or republicans to rent from you.

0

gudpoynt 1 year, 11 months ago

And why stop with homosexuality? Let's see what other provisions of the Civil Right act we can now violate under the guise of religious freedom ... "You are Jewish? Oooooh.. I'm sorry, but you can't shop here in my Jesus store. After all, your people did crucify the one true Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and this is after all, a private business in the great state of Kansas. Jesus and God forgive you, but I'm afraid, as a sinner ever seeking the grace of God through Christ, I am yet unable. Peace be with you. Now please leave." ... "I'm sorry Mr. Hassan but we cannot review your home loan application. Well, it's because you're a Muslim. I'm sorry, but our charter explicitly forbids assisting those who make war on the sons of David. According to the bank's founders who wrote the charter, this includes all followers of Islam. I realize it is unfortunate, but that's just the way it is here in the great state of Kansas." ... "Yes ma'am, I agree your daughter is simply delightful, and quite advanced for a 6-year-old, but we simply cannot admit her to our school. Our charter follows a strict and literal interpretation of the Koran, and as the charter says right here, admission to females of her age is forbidden. I know it's disappointing for you. But praise Allah for the great state of Kansas, that we may do business as He intended. Begging your pardon, but do you happen to have a son?" ... "Before we talk about your raise, let me first congratulate you on your pregnancy! I bet your husband is excited! What? You're not married? Ooooohhh.. I'm sorry, but we'll have to let you go. Hey, I know your upset, but losing your job isn't nearly as bad as losing your soul, which for you is long gone I'm afraid. On the bright side, before spending an eternity in Hell, you might be able to transfer to one of our branches that is... you know... outside of the great state of Kansas" ... "Hey man! Did I just see you just kiss that guy? Get outta my deli! This is a private establishment in the great state of Kansas, and I don't have to compromise my religious beliefs by condoning your hedonistic exhibitions. No soup for you!" ... And last but not least... "Yes Mr. DeBagg, we received your application to the Chamber of Commerce, and as the owner of DeBagg Property Management Inc, you meet most of our qualifications. However, it has come to our attention that you routinely deny applications for homosexuals, citing the Kansas law that protects your religious freedom. Right, well it is the Chamber's policy, based on our core religious principles, to deny admission to all Deebag's, without exception. And yes, as you may have guessed, we just made that religion up, pulling is straight from the darkest corners of our nether regions, for the sole purpose of keeping DeBagg's like you as far away from us as possible.

"But please... don't mention that last part to the great state of Kansas ;-)

0

tylerray13 1 year, 11 months ago

This isn't surprising in the least bit...Kansas is one of the least progressive, slowest growing states in the country. The only attention it gets nationally is when some religious idiots do things like ban the teaching of evolution, gun down an abortion doctor, or protest soldiers funerals. It's quite embarrassing when traveling to other parts of the country.

It's funny how republicans talk about limiting government while at the same time impose their religious views on things such as education, women's health, and LGBT families. If religious organizations don't want to abide by the laws, then they shouldn't get any public funding or tax breaks.

0

gudpoynt 1 year, 11 months ago

Suppose the law goes into effect, and it is indeed possible for a landlord, operating a private rental company, to refuse rental applications from homosexuals.

Then, suppose a homosexual successfully hides his or her sexuality from the landlord (without committing fraud on the rental application). Does the landlord then have the right to evict the homosexual tenant?

And after that, having learned his lesson, can the landlord now put a question on the rental application asking if you are gay?

0

Scut Farkus 1 year, 11 months ago

Many of you are forgetting one premise that most anti-discrimination laws are based on. If you offer service to the general public (housing, restaurants, retail stores, etc.) you cannot dictate to what customers you are going to serve. If however, you offer services to a specific group only, you can discriminate about who you cater to. Churches, social fraternities, clubs, etc. etc.. However racial discrimination lawsuits have muddied that line. A Catholic hospital that offers service to all denominations cannot cannot refuse you if you are a gay, Jewish Rabbi. But they can say you are not welcome at our church unless you convert.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

Rental Property Restaurant Church Bar Grocery Store

All private property. Their best business interest to earn money won’t afford them to discriminate. Forcing these private entities to serve those that they hate only makes it worse. They will still discriminate…..there’s just no “white only” sign. This law does nothing to change the bigot mind and that’s what we’re really after. Any minority, gay, or black I know wouldn’t go to an establishment they knew to be discriminatory.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

There’s no difference…..just like any gay or black that doesn’t want to rent to a straight or white.

I’m no bigot. Happily married to a non-white.

You should brush up on my positions….they defend minorities.

0

jimmyjms 1 year, 11 months ago

Lateralis, what exactly is the difference between not renting to someone who is gay and not renting to someone that is black? Or married to a race other than their own?

You really should brush up on the laws of this country before you ramble your bigoted views.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

“Invoking the absolute right of private property owners is misguided and simplistic.” – yourworstnightmare

No more absolute than the freedom of speech. I hate Fred Phelps, NAMBLA, and the Black Panthers but they have absolute rights. The constitution gives me the right to my personal property, papers, and body.

"The Jim Crow south is a shining example of what can happen if rentals are not subject to civil protections.

No one is forcing you to use your private property as a rental. If you don't want to rent to gays or blacks or xtians or muslims or frick-all, don't put your property up for rental.

Simple, and your freedom is preserved."-– yourworstnightmare

Jim Crow laws were a violation of civil rights in public places like schools and municipal buildings. We didn’t need an act of congress but a repeal of the illegal laws.

If you’re gay or black and I don’t like you, don’t rent from me. My right to my property supercedes your preference to my business.

Rights protect even the scumbags.

0

kansanbygrace 1 year, 11 months ago

Bigotry and prejudice are not Christian. Forgiveness and forbearance are. If the Christian really has something to offer, it will be obvious. If it's not obvious that they are more forgiving, more forbearing, and living an exemplary life, they would better work on their own sin rather than judging someone else.

The "sin" of homosexuality is not identified as such in the Bible. It is called "abomination". That is exactly the descriptor for divorce, as well. Gonna keep all the "abominators" out or just the gay ones?

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 11 months ago

Invoking the absolute right of private property owners is misguided and simplistic.

The state is very active in the regulation of use of private property, particularly when it comes to rental housing. In theory, a private property owner should be able to rent to as many families under one roof that they desire, but the state says no. The state also has minimum standards for rental occupancy.

The Jim Crow south is a shining example of what can happen if rentals are not subject to civil protections.

No one is forcing you to use your private property as a rental. If you don't want to rent to gays or blacks or xtians or muslims or frick-all, don't put your property up for rental.

Simple, and your freedom is preserved.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

You don’t have to feel sorry for them. Leave them to their own ignorance….and be on your way.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

You don’t have to feel sorry for them. Leave them to their own ignorance….and be on your way.

0

oletimer 1 year, 11 months ago

cry me a river. The oddballs have more rights than I ever will. I refuse to feel sorry for them.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

To MAKE anyone rent to anyone is an invasion of my rights to operate my private property as I wish.

0

rockchalk1977 1 year, 11 months ago

So the one man jihad against Gov. Brownback, Republicans and Christians continues. How many articles per day do we have to endure LJW?

0

question4u 1 year, 11 months ago

Kansas will be a much better place if Quaker landlords have the right to refuse to rent apartments to veterans and active military personnel. We'll all be better off if Muslem landlords have the right to refuse to rent to anyone who might eat ham. Things will be great if Jehova's Witnesses have the right to evict anyone who celebrates Christmas. When Hindus have the right to discriminate against anyone who raises beef for consumption, we'll all be able to sleep better at night.

Thank goodness that our Kansas state representatives are finally willing to let people discriminate against veterans, people who eat ham or beef, and anyone who puts up a Christmas tree in an apartment. No more will Kansans be forced to tolerate people who are different from themselves so long as they have a religious reason for discrimination. Kansas government will ensure that religious rights trump civil rights. That's what the Founding Fathers wanted when put that part about subordinating the state to the church in the Constitution.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

You’re absolutely correct. Not all Christians are like this but the level of hypocrisy is clear.

0

ltownatrain 1 year, 11 months ago

"Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people; before you tell me how much you love your God, show me in how much you love all His children; before you preach to me of your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors. In the end, I'm not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give." - Cory Booker

If only all Christians could think this way then maybe nonsense like this bill would be a mute point.

0

KSManimal 1 year, 11 months ago

You can belong to whatever fist-swinging religion you want; but your right to practice ends where someone else's nose begins.

I sincerely hope that, when the idiot bigots who legislate and govern this state enact this as law, EVERY GLBT landlord immediately evicts EVERY Christian tenant. Likewise, EVERY GLBT employer immediately fires EVERY Christian employee. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera......

All on the basis of religious freedom, of course. Can't make me rent to Christians. Or employ them. Or serve them in my restaurant. Or my retail store,......

0

mom_of_three 1 year, 11 months ago

Who wants to explain this to Lateralis?

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

"Ways in which Congress (or any given state) has interfered with religion: No human sacrifice, no polygamy, no cannibalism, no underage sex."

All are crimes. They're illegal no matter the rationale.

0

sourpuss 1 year, 11 months ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

So for those of you that can't read, this says that Congress cannot establish ANY official religion by law. It can't privilege one religion over another. It can't authorize one or more religions as a basis for law. Period.

The second part is the one everyone likes to lean on, but it says that the government (Congress) cannot pass a law that PROHIBITS religious observance. It COULD ban Kosher food in supermarkets, but it CAN'T stop someone from cooking a Kosher meal. It COULD ban the importation of rock crystal from Ireland, it CAN'T prevent a Wiccan from observing the solstice. Congress can pass such laws that effectively impede religious observance, but it can't ban the religion itself.

Ways in which Congress (or any given state) has interfered with religion: No human sacrifice, no polygamy, no cannibalism, no underage sex. Congress has never said that you can't BELIEVE in a religions that requires you to sacrifice your brother on midsummer and consummate a marriage with your younger twin sisters, but you can't actually perform that religious observance. You might sit there and think that we all agree these are "bad things" but that opinion is not universal, as much as you want to think it is. Religion is all subjective and by privileging one or more religions, those then become "state" religions because they are sanctioned (upheld) by the government. By allowing religious organizations to operate outside the law, the government is de facto establishing them by saying that those organizations, as long as they are acting "religiously," do not have to adhere to social custom. So no, just because you have a certain set of "beliefs" doesn't allow you or your group to do anything you want. You can't hide behind a curtain of religion that allows for anti-social behavior. Yes, you have to cover all legal drugs, no you can't marry more than one person, yes your building must conform to fire code even if it makes your fire god angry.

Religion is not a pass to break the law and neither I nor the government are in the business of protecting your particular, arbitrary set of beliefs against modernity. Frankly, allowing religions to be tax exempt is already establishing them too much.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

"For example if this passes which it probably will a landlord could hypothetically refuse to rent to a some one within the LGBT community by stating it violates their religious beliefs or a business could hypothetically refuse to hire someone for the same reason and according to the state they could get away with it." Itown

It's private property. Whatever their rationale doesn't matter.

0

ltownatrain 1 year, 11 months ago

Just for the record I don't think the problem here is gays saying they have a right to be on church property as that is up to the church. The thing that many are afraid of is that people could use this to discriminate against the LGBTQI community. For example if this passes which it probably will a landlord could hypothetically refuse to rent to a some one within the LGBT community by stating it violates their religious beliefs or a business could hypothetically refuse to hire someone for the same reason and according to the state they could get away with it. This is the problem that I have read about recently with this, however, the biggest problem that I see here is that it's going to make the state look like a bunch of idiots because we all know what will happen is someone will use this law to discriminate and someone with a really good lawyer will challenge it all the way to the federal courts if they have to which could invalidate the law anyway meaning the state legislature wasted their time on it.

Also to those clamoring freedom of religion you have to remember that the constitution and courts have stated before that our rights and freedoms are only protected until they infringe on someone else's rights and freedoms.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

If you walk into my house and I tell you to get out because I don’t like you because you are gay….is that a crime?

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

"Some hyper-religious groups will of course use it to deny lodging, food, health care, services and so on to LGBT. " Kansas Conscience

You don't HAVE A RIGHT to their charity.

0

1 year, 11 months ago

This law will not only legalize discrimination, it is a major part of the GnOP's War on Women. We should all fear this law as it removes a major part of all of our civil rights. Some hyper-religious groups will of course use it to deny lodging, food, health care, services and so on to LGBT. The next step will be for them to deny services to those who aren't the "right kind of people." Keep in mind that turn-about is fair play. It will soon be known who discriminates on "religious grounds;" they will soon find themselves being denied the same because they discriminate.

That covers the discrimination, the next bit covers the War on Women.

Read the "5 Right-Wing Violations Against Women" and you'll get just a taste of what the GnOP wants to do. Their desire, supported completely by The Guv, ALEC and the C-Street Mafia (where The Guv lived at one time) is to institute anti-abortion legislation regardless of who gets in the way and is hurt. They call themselves "Pro-Life" when in fact they are really anti-abortion, regardless of what happens. http://www.alternet.org/health/154563/5_right-wing_violations_against_women_that_we_must_crush_?page=entire A frightening aspect of the article is a young woman who's in jail for "killing her fetus." She was depressed and tried to commit suicide. Her friends saved her, but now she's in jail and on trial for murder and feticide, facing a possible 65 years if served consecutively. http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-pregnant-women-free-bei-bei

The Guv has one goal with this law, to follow the dictates of ALEC others who bought him.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

To be gay, straight, or otherwise isn’t a right.

Walk into the courthouse, DMV, or any public building and be discriminated against is a crime.

Walk into a Church that doesn’t allow homosexuality and demanding a place in the congregation infringes on the Churches right to practice as they wish.

There’s no requirement to attend or participate. To step on that property is voluntary.

0

jafs 1 year, 11 months ago

The "compelling interest" would be equality of rights under the law for gay/lesbian/etc. people, and anti-discrimination laws are the only way to ensure those.

0

Lateralis 1 year, 11 months ago

For the 1000th time being gay isn’t a right. If a Church doesn’t want you involved on their private property you have NO RIGHT to force the Church to go against its ignorant views.

0

Flap Doodle 1 year, 11 months ago

What happened to the hundreds of people who were expected?

0

Timothy Eugene 1 year, 11 months ago

C.J. Brune of Lawrence attended the rally, and said, "I can't imagine living in a worse world where someone's religion would impact my rights."

Last time I looked, Freedom of Religion was promised in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Atheists and gays/lesbians think their "right to be different" trump the Constitution. I think not.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.