Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Brownback administration supports bill that critics say could invalidate Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance

February 14, 2012

Advertisement

Lori Wagner, of Lawrence, outside committee room after testifying Tuesday against House Bill 2260, which she said would allow legal challenges to local laws, such as the one in Lawrence, that ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. The House Judiciary Committee took no immediate action on the measure.

Lori Wagner, of Lawrence, outside committee room after testifying Tuesday against House Bill 2260, which she said would allow legal challenges to local laws, such as the one in Lawrence, that ban discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. The House Judiciary Committee took no immediate action on the measure.

Related document

House Bill 2260 ( .PDF )

— Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration on Tuesday supported a bill that it said would protect religious liberty, but critics said the measure would allow discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.

Lori Wagner, of Lawrence, said House Bill 2260 would allow people to claim religious reasons for challenging a Lawrence ordinance that bars discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons.

“It would legalize discrimination,” Wagner said. “If the underlying goal is to go after gay people, we’re not going to have it.”

But Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer testified in support of the bill, saying it was needed because President Barack Obama was attacking religious rights. He cited the recent controversy over the Obama administration’s decision to require contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans, which has been criticized by some Catholic leaders.

“As you consider House Bill 2260, the federal government’s recent attempts to trample the religious liberties of millions of Americans must be at the forefront of your debate,” Colyer said. “Religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as a people.”

HB 2260 would prohibit government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless the government can prove the action is furthering a compelling government interest. The bill would allow individuals to sue the government if their exercise of religion “has been burdened, or is likely to be burdened.”

The measure, by state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, was considered before Kinzer’s House Judiciary Committee. No immediate action was taken on the bill, which has been dubbed the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.

In addition to Colyer, the proposal was supported by the Kansas Catholic Conference, Kansas Family Council, Concerned Women for America of Kansas, and the Alliance Defense Fund.

Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said the legislation was “necessary as a bulwark” against the erosion of religious freedoms. “Increasingly, freedom of religion is being reduced and confined to little more than the freedom to worship in a private setting,” he said.

Supporters said the measure was similar to a federal law already in place and wouldn’t violate anyone’s rights.

But state Sen. Marci Francisco, D-Lawrence, spoke against the measure, and Lawrence Mayor Aron Cromwell submitted testimony against it too.

“If a community is concerned that discrimination exists, that community should have some flexibility in addressing those concerns,” Francisco said. “I do not believe that our Kansas statutes should be used to condone discrimination on the basis of an individual exercising their freedom of religion.”

Cromwell said the bill’s definition of “compelling government interest” excludes local law banning discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing that differ from the Kansas Act Against Discrimination law.

“Lawrence’s law prohibiting discrimination is broader and more inclusive than the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. Our laws were enacted after much public comment and thoughtful deliberation by our elected officials,” he said.

Thomas Witt, executive director of the Kansas Equality Coalition, said the bill would invalidate all nondiscrimination policies that do not exactly match the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. Many schools, universities, cities and counties have policies that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which goes beyond the KAAD, he said.

“Our cities, counties, education institutions, and other agencies have adopted these ordinances and policies in good faith, and out of a desire to make our communities better places to live,” Witt said.

“The last thing they expect from their Legislature is to have this time-bomb dropped in their laps,” he said.

Other groups opposed to the bill were the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, the Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women and the Great Plains Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The same bill was considered last year but didn’t advance through the Legislature. During last year’s debate, the supporters of the bill talked mostly about protecting the rights of people who opposed same-sex marriage. This time, however, many of the supporters focused on health care mandates from the Obama administration.

Comments

Roland Gunslinger 2 years, 2 months ago

Cait-- c'mon. You'll never get through toe kansanjayhawk. Ever.

A quote comes to mind when I read his/her posts.

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." — Leo Tolstoy

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

I agree that government has no right to interfere with religion. On the other hand, conversely, religion has no right to interfere in government. It invalidates any reason to interfere between a woman and her doctor on the matter of abortion or contraception nor does it have the right to interfere in matters of sexuality. So, if you want government to not interfere with your religion, get your "God" out of my laws.

0

Gandalf 2 years, 2 months ago

How about if a restruant owner refused to serve blacks because they have the mark of cain?

0

kansanjayhawk 2 years, 2 months ago

The bill protects "religious liberty" which is part of the first amendment to the constitution. It is too bad that Obama and his liberal cohorts do not respect the rights of Christian organizations to practice their faith as they see fit. It is too bad that the government is trying to insert itself into the private decision making of religious organizations. It is not "discrimination" if a religious organization simply practices the doctrines and principles of their faith. If the government does not like it that is too bad because the constitution protects those rights.

0

mikekt 2 years, 2 months ago

Well, since it is all about expanding or protecting the religious freedoms to do as one pleases as a religious group, within ones' own group hospitals, medical clinics or with one's patients, why not just allow some convicted male priests or some kinky sunday school teachers who "like young boys or girls" to decide who gets to put on a Doctors Coat and is allowed to practice Pediatrics as an M.D. or D.O. (without any medical training.. or even with medical training and some off the wall sexual ideas) and call anything as they might wish to do "a religious medically approved treatment," because the rights of a religion and it's members must prevail at any cost over the governments right to set standards for general hospital medical behaviors and expected norms of care. Slippery Slopes Ahead Here! Future Headline: PERVERTED DR. SUES KANSAS GOVERNMENT FOR VIOLATING KS STATE LAW BY REFUSING TO LET HIM (OR HER) PRACTICE KINKY SEXUAL MEDICINE WITH MINOR MALES & FEMALES (& ADULTS) ACCORDING TO HIS (OR HER) OWN STRANGE RELIGIOUS MEDICAL BELIEFS. Be careful what you ask for .....because legislation is not a trivial thing nor is religiously based naive pandering to specialized parts of the religious public for political purposes, a deed done without potential exposure to future consequences.

0

George_Braziller 2 years, 2 months ago

And how would this work in reverse? If a property owner is allowed to not rent to a tenant because of sexual orientation, would a gay property owner be allowed to refuse to rent an apartment to Fred Phelps? Hmmmmm........

0

BornAgainAmerican 2 years, 2 months ago

Scott Rothschild once again preaching to the Godless Party of Athiests.

0

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 2 months ago

Governor Blowback is really overreaching. Let the Blowback begin.

0

beatrice 2 years, 2 months ago

My religion tells me it is okay to smoke marijuana. Does that mean Brownback supports my right to get stoned?

0

pace 2 years, 2 months ago

So all I have to do is establish a church which hold as tenets, that it doesn't believe in other people's rights of free speech, equal rights for women and equal rights for different races. Then our people could go back in time and treat people any way we want. A good name for that church would be United haters, or Corporations against the rights of ordinary people.

0

Armored_One 2 years, 2 months ago

Anyone else finding it funny that these religions that are claiming discrimination are attempting to force their way into politics, but at the same time are refusing to surrender their tax-emept status?

0

Agnostick 2 years, 2 months ago

If this bill were to become law.... and successfully defended all the way up to SCOTUS....

Imagine how many "GLBT churches" would spring up overnight.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 2 months ago

"Madison argued in a 1788 letter to Jefferson, religious fanaticism was as serious a danger to religious liberty as excessive state authority. In his words, “rights of conscience” were undermined by “overbearing majorities” who were intent on advancing the interests of a particular “religious establishment.” In plain and simple terms, the founders meant to protect individuals against excessive encroachments by church as well as state." (a source)

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 2 months ago

14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 2 months ago

Kansas: As bigoted as you think!

0

Gandalf 2 years, 2 months ago

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Aren't ALL catholic leaders citizens of a foreign government?

0

Agnostick 2 years, 2 months ago

“Increasingly, freedom of religion is being reduced and confined to little more than the freedom to worship in a private setting,” he said.


And the problem with that is....??

0

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 2 months ago

Jon Stewart: "You've confused the war on your religion with not always getting everything you want. It's called being a part of a society."

Barry Goldwater: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."

0

George_Braziller 2 years, 2 months ago

How is requiring coverage of contraception in an insurance plan "attacking religious rights"? Just because birth control is covered in a plan doesn't force you into using it.


"But Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer testified in support of the bill, saying it was needed because President Barack Obama was attacking religious rights. He cited the recent controversy over the Obama administration’s decision to require contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans, which has been criticized by some Catholic leaders."

0

Jimo 2 years, 2 months ago

Despite the quotes about womens' health care, this bill wouldn't affect women. The bills expressly exempts protections provided by federal law. Federal law forbids discrimination against women including burdening womens' health by treating their medical needs differently than men. There is no "I'm a religious bigot" exemption to this generally applicable rule available in federal law (although Republicans apparently will try to enact one through the U.S. Congress).

In fact, this bill can't touch women, or blacks, or Hispanics, or Jews, or any other religions -- all because KSA 44-1001 and/or federal law prohibit that. And the bills says its religious bigotry rights don't apply where in conflict with Kansas/federal discrimination protections.

Then, who does it affect? Apparently, any sexual "deviancy" that exist beyond the realm of heterosexuality. (A) KSA 44-1001 doesn't protect gays, transvestites, etc. (B) Neither does any federal statute. Gays aren't a protected group at the federal or at many state levels. You don't have to do business with them, you don't have to rent to them, you don't have to employ them. Period. (Unless the state, or a political subdivision of the state such as the City of Lawrence, says otherwise. This bill exists to take away the local ability to say otherwise.)

But the bill would still be unconstitutional.....probably. It is a backdoor endrun around Romer v. Evans, the Colorado case where that state tried to prohibit local protections of gays. While Colorado was honest enough to do it explicitly, this bill tries to do the same thing by process of elimination (again, not blacks, not Hispanics, not other religions, not women ....Hmmm....who is left? Who else might a holier-than-thou Bible thumper want to discriminate against that the state of Kansas or the federal government doesn't protect? Who, oh who?).

0

voevoda 2 years, 2 months ago

I don't think that supporters of this bill have realized how it could be used. They might think only of undermining protection of gays and lesbians. But this law would allow: Vegetarians motivated by religious tenets to object to meat-packing industries in the state. Members of polygamous sects to object to the "one-man-one-woman" formula of Kansas law. Persons belonging to religions that forbid the charging of interest on loans to object to any business that does so. Persons belonging to religious sects that prohibit men and women from associating in public places to object to any business that allows men and women clients to mix. Persons belonging to religions that ban alcohol consumption to object to the granting of any liquor licenses. Persons belonging to religions that prohibit caffeine consumption to object to the use of public funds to provide coffee at any public offices or events.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values...it requires that their proposal be subject to argument and amendable to reason. " Five points to the first person who can tell me where this quote came from. And for an extra little oomph... https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2706282611458&set=a.1024194160298.2005058.1088571988&type=1&theater

0

Calvin Mabry 2 years, 2 months ago

It never ceases to amaze me at the depths to which these lunatic, Bible thumping republicans will stoop to force their narrow minded and bigoted agenda down our throats. What's even more amazing is how many Kansans blindly swallow the GOP's venomous cool aid, no matter what the obvious ramifications to their own well being.

0

Alyosha 2 years, 2 months ago

Christians and Republicans need to remember Ronald Reagan's words:

"Church and state are, and must remain, separate."

Read it for yourselves:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=39316#ixzz1l5tWAvMc

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 2 months ago

Why is anyone surprised at our Facist Republican Governer's antics? He clearly favors a theocracy in violation of the U.S. Constitution and has since he was elected by the clueless people of Kansas.

Furthermore, these Republicans have no useful programs at all, and in place of that, choose to trash, bash and denigrate the current President of the United States Barack Obama. It is the only theme you hear from all the Republican "candidates" attacking each other much to the absolute delight of the rest of us..

Are you proud, Kansas? Has this theocrat presented your home state to the nation as a sensible and reasonable place to live? I think not.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 2 months ago

Why is anyone surprised at our Facist Republican Governer's antics? He clearly favors a theocracy in violation of the U.S. Constitution and has since he was elected by the clueless people of Kansas.

Furthermore, these Republicans have no useful programs at all, and in place of that, choose to trash, bash and denigrate the current President of the United States Barack Obama. It is the only theme you hear from all the Republican "candidates" attacking each other much to the absolute delight of the rest of us..

Are you proud, Kansas? Has this theocrat presented your home state to the nation as a sensible and reasonable place to live? I think not.

0

Milton Bland 2 years, 2 months ago

I am glad I was born pre 1960. For most of my life America has been strong and I was proud of what we stood for. But the liberals have changed that. Almost half of this country now rely on some form of welfare as pushed by the Democrats. I spent quite a bit of my life serving overseas and I saw first hand what socialism was doing to European countries. When I returrned home I could sense we were following the same path. Obama was elected partly by his promise to cut the federal deficit, but look at his proposed budget. The only growth his plans allow for is dependence on the government. It is painfully obvious the college communities such as Douglas County are too blind to see what is in store if continue down the path laid out by the Democrats. Hopefully the rest of Kansas, and the rest of the country, is a little smarter. If not, we will see Greece style riots in the streets within five years. Continued socialism and failure to follow our founding fathers guidance will undermine all the freedoms my generation and previous generations have fought to protect. For those who think I am off base, wait a few years and I will be telling you "I told you so".

0

lawslady 2 years, 2 months ago

Matthew 21:23-27 - Those who only TALK about doing the right thing will be SOL.

Matthew 22:35 - The greatest of these is love.

John 8:7 - Let he is without sin cast the first stone.

Those who merely talk about following the rules, but show by their actions how hateful (not loving) they truely are, are not following the reported actual words of their leader.

0

rtwngr 2 years, 2 months ago

Go, Sam, go! The Constitution of the United States provided that the State shall not establish a mandatory religion. It never prohibited the free exercise of religion in the public arena. Each one of us has a religion that forms our moral beings. Whether it be the religion of secular relativism where anything goes or stricter tenets of, say, Islam that require a specific way of dress. How we are going to find a balance is beyond me. I will admit this, there has been such an attack on Christianity by the secular public since Everson v. Board of education in 1947, that there was going to eventually be a push back.

It is intellectually disingenuous to frame the recent Obama mandate by the HHS as protecting women's healthcare. By doing so you have to ignore the fact that birth control pills and the morning after pill are already readily available to anyone that wants them. Sterilization that is needed to remedy another healthcare problem, a hysterectomy for example, is not a problem with religious healthcare providers. Elective sterilization is another issue.

If it is so important that contraceptives and morning after pills be provided free of charge, in the name of "Women's" healthcare, why not all prescription drugs? Why are women entitled to free anything and men are not. I require a medication that is not expensive but it sure as heck isn't free either. What makes contraception more important to a woman than the drug that I have to take daily? Isn't this a form of discrimination too?

Sorry, secularists. You brought a lot of this on yourselves by opportunistic lawsuits pushed by the ACLU claiming offense where none existed. Then, like in the comments above, rather than extend the tolerance you preached, you mocked and derided the people you would seek to silence. Jesus said we should forgive seven times seventy. Maybe we were offended for the 491st time.

0

usnsnp 2 years, 2 months ago

Laws agains discrimination also protects Catholics, Protestants, Jews, everyone.

0

Jackie Jackasserson 2 years, 2 months ago

Most people understand when they practice medicine they are just practicing medicine (or psychology, psychiatry, etc.) and they are not in business to practice religion. Those that don't shouldn't go into a field that violates their religious sensitivities. OBGYN's and general practitioners that abhor birth control should go into some other field. Likewise: Psychologists that abhor sex offenders do not go into sex offender treatment. Psychiatrists that believe the devil possesses individuals who hallucinate should probably go into some occult. Laws promoting discrimination aren't needed. Just some sense among practitioners.

0

UltimateGrownup 2 years, 2 months ago

The word "discriminate" should not be used in this context. Homosexuals are not a race. In fact, acts of homosexuality are illegal in Kansas (disregarding Lawrence v. Texas), so the ordinance, to begin with, is akin to a law protecting jaywalkers, flashers, or drug users, from a standpoint of legality.

0

jafs 2 years, 2 months ago

This is actually interesting.

And, I've asked the question before, if your religious belief leads you to discriminate, what then?

It seems to me that there's a conflict between two differing rights/values here - the right to religious freedom, and the right to not be discriminated against.

If religious folks do in fact believe that their religion leads them to not hire gays, and yet our society has determined that we want gays to have equal rights, what then?

Seems to me that there's no easy win/win answer.

0

Frightwig 2 years, 2 months ago

Can somebody please quote the section of the bill that denies health care to women and discriminates against gays? I read the bill and I missed it somehow.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 2 months ago

coloradoan.....I have family that was protestant clergy and I'm Native. I see the mess in it's entirety.

0

usnsnp 2 years, 2 months ago

Seperation of church and state. To me this means that whatever a church believes should not influence any law that the state passes. I find it funny when President Kennedy ran for the Presidencie there were all theis claims that he would be a puppet of the Vatican, and these claims came from the Republican Party. Where are these claims now that the Republicans have 2 Catholics running for the job.

0

downriverdan 2 years, 2 months ago

~“As you consider House Bill 2260, the federal government’s recent attempts to trample the religious liberties of millions of Americans must be at the forefront of your debate,” Colyer said. “Religious liberty is at the heart of who we are as a people.”~

You are so wrong Mr. Colyer. It is individual liberty that is at the heart of who we are as a people! It is my individual right to not be forced into your belief system nor you unto mine.

~Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said the legislation was “necessary as a bulwark” against the erosion of religious freedoms. “Increasingly, freedom of religion is being reduced and confined to little more than the freedom to worship in a private setting,” he said.~

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret" so sayeth the Lord Jesus Christ.

0

geekin_topekan 2 years, 2 months ago

We need to quit making women's health a religious political issue. Praying to your God is one thing but inflicting your beliefs is why the founders intentionally created a non-Christian nation;

0

its_just_math 2 years, 2 months ago

Run for the hills! Brownback is comin' to get us!

0

Lindsey Buscher 2 years, 2 months ago

"...needed because President Barack Obama was attacking religious rights."

Wut?

0

Roland Gunslinger 2 years, 2 months ago

If this goes through expect to see a large influx of Mormons into the state so they can practice plural marriage legally. Not that I care about that... but some would probably get all huffy about it.

0

werekoala 2 years, 2 months ago

I don't think they've thought their cunning plan through...

as those up above posted, I'm wondering what the "compelling government reason" behind prohibiting Rastafarians and Native Americans from ingesting illegal drugs in private ceremonies would be.

But worse than that, doesn't this open the door to sharia?!?!?!?!

The plight of the poor fundamentalist in an egalitarian society. Every step he takes to advance his religion, also aids the deluded followers of the False Gods...

0

hujiko 2 years, 2 months ago

The persecuted have become the persecutors - didn't Jesus teach about loving your neighbor?

0

Gandalf 2 years, 2 months ago

Does this mean I can smite Evilsam with Odin's Hammer and claim it was my religious right? :)

0

JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 2 months ago

One small step for Governor Brownback...one "Great Leap Backwards" for Kansans.

0

coloradoan 2 years, 2 months ago

Wow. They appear to have no clue! So now a Kansas branch of the Native American church from the Southwest that prefers to smoke peyote can sue the government for banning the substance? What of all the other diverse religions? Or is the idea to also declare an official, "acceptable" religion? Now there's a plan. NOT.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 2 months ago

good phoenixman, now realize that when the gop runs the government they try to infuse their religious beliefs at the expense of others who have different beliefs. you can practice your religion all you want....you simply can't use it through a gop government to mess with others. no one is stopping you or any other godlican from religion....we're simply saying no to having you shove it upon us.

0

Armstrong 2 years, 2 months ago

Gotta love it. The left stirring the left. Thank Obama for this one guys. Rothschild seems to do a good job of getting you in a frenzy daily as well. Hope and change !

0

audvisartist 2 years, 2 months ago

They overthrow national governments in other countries. How hard can it be to overthrow state government in Kansas?

0

Phoenixman 2 years, 2 months ago

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

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

0

Jayhawk1958 2 years, 2 months ago

"Increasingly, freedom of religion is being reduced and confined to little more than the freedom to worship in a private setting," he said.

And there you have it. They want no seperation between church and state is what I get from that statement.

0

verity 2 years, 2 months ago

". . . . the legislation was 'necessary as a bulwark' against the erosion of religious freedoms."

I have observed for decades that those squawking about the loss of their religious freedom usually mean their freedom to force their religion on others.

0

sci4all 2 years, 2 months ago

I believe that all stores should be closed on Sundays. I believe that women should only be treated by female doctors, and men by males. I believe that having my kids learn that the world is round will cause them to lose sight of God who fixed the four corners of the earth. I believe that porn, alcohol, and communing with members of the opposite sex to whom one isn't related should be illegal. I refuse to hire fertile women because they should be home bearing and caring for their children.

Thank goodness this law will allow my religious freedom to flourish here in Kansas! Otherwise I might have to move to Saudi Arabia.

0

Mike Ford 2 years, 2 months ago

Go, gop, go. Lose Boeing jobs and create nabf boondoggle and put bigotry before jobs. Memo to the middle ages religious views....Europe didn't want you either. Hey Mr. Santorum....the fourteenth century called....they need someone to run the crusades.

0

Glenn Reed 2 years, 2 months ago

Oh, if people would just gather up under God and be properly SAVED!

Respect your masters!

1 Timothy 6:1-2

0

Phoenixman 2 years, 2 months ago

"If a community is concerned that discrimination exists, that community should have some flexibility in addressing those concerns," Kansas is a community, just a little larger than Lawrence. When I see NOW, ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State opposed to something, my first thought is that what they're opposing is probably good for Kansas. I suppose after the ship wreck that was sebelius we have to over correct the state a little bit to get it back on course. In seven years Governor Moran (2019) will have inherited from Governor Brownback a balanced state to oversee during his eight years. By then (2027) Governor Kobach can fine tune our fair state for our children's benefit. I see very little to be concerned about regarding this bill, it protects the whole of the state with no special interests or special groups to be beholding. Sounds to me like prudent legislation, another example of our legislators doing in Topeka what they were sent to do, represent our interests.

0

ksjayhawk74 2 years, 2 months ago

So religious groups want to have the "freedom" to discriminate against gays and lesbians... Good people...

0

dabbindan 2 years, 2 months ago

certainly don't allow any laws prevent you from being a kind, generous and decent human being. you know, christ like. in public.

0

toe 2 years, 2 months ago

"Increasingly, freedom of religion is being reduced and confined to little more than the freedom to worship in a private setting," That is about all that will be tolerated.

0

kkalgarin 2 years, 2 months ago

WOW! Are you serious, this is absolutley unbelieveable! So its ok to practice your religious beliefs but if you are gay, lesbian or transgender you're SOL? Once again our narrow minded govenor pushes his policy on us, when is this man going to get the heck out of office, he is destroying our city and our state. What he needs to do is stop all this rub my back and I'll rub yours crap and wake up! We need laws that help every single Kansan not single out persons and groups and show favortism, if you do not want to mix with people who are different and have every right to be individual, don't. But do not punish us who think every single person in our state has a right to be who they are, you do not see gays stuffing there beliefs down our throat, so why is our government doing it to them. Just as the ignoramus' who created this bill have the freedom to do so, do you not ask the same freedom to be given to all? No matter what their beliefs or sexual prefference. Govenor BB you are the worst thing to ever happen to our gracious state of Kansas.

0

Enlightenment 2 years, 2 months ago

So now the religious conservatives need a bill passed in the state to make sure they KEEP their religious freedom, but are unwilling to provide gays and lesbians the same rights they currently have through marriage.

0

Enlightenment 2 years, 2 months ago

Wow, another smoke screen. So this bill is a reaction to Obama's healthcare initiative that will allow all women access to healthcare.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.