Archive for Wednesday, March 28, 2012

House gives preliminary OK to bill that supporters say preserves religious freedom, but opponents say allows discrimination

March 28, 2012, 5:09 p.m. Updated March 29, 2012, 7:04 a.m.


— The Kansas House on Wednesday advanced legislation that would allow a religious defense to discriminate against gays.

Two Lawrence representatives attacked the bill, called the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, as an attempt to destroy a city of Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation.

In an impassioned speech, state Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, said, “I am very proud of my Lawrence community, and I’m very proud of the ordinance that we passed.” Ballard added, “Discrimination is an injustice. It is an injustice to everyone.”

House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, said, “I don’t believe it is ever right to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.”

But State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, defended his bill, saying it was meant to make sure government could not infringe on an individual’s religious beliefs.

“Free exercise of religion is at the core of who we are as a people,” Kinzer said.

Davis asked Kinzer if under Kinzer’s bill an apartment owner could cite his religious beliefs to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple.

“That is generally correct,” Kinzer said.

Davis said that was unfair to the city of Lawrence, which is the only city in Kansas that has an anti-discrimination ordinance designed to protect people based on sexual orientation.

State Rep. Charlie Roth, R-Salina, said that Kinzer’s legislation was “homophobic” and that it will hurt Kansas’ image. “It sends the message that Kansas is not welcoming. Kansas will become known as the land of the pure as defined by the few,” Roth said.

But Kinzer said local units of government should not be allowed to engage in religious discrimination against its citizens.

The bill was approved 89-27. Ballard, Davis and state Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, voted against it. State Reps. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, and TerriLois Gregory, R-Baldwin City, voted for it.

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.

Right before advancing the Kansas Preservation of Freedom Act, the House gave preliminary approval to putting a chapel for prayer and meditation in the Statehouse.

Both proposals will require a final vote before going to the Senate. Those votes will probably be taken Thursday.


Boston_Corbett 6 years, 1 month ago

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

Liberty275 6 years, 1 month ago

When fascism came to Germany it was national socialists getting rid of the wealthy class. I think they came up with a final solution. Fascism came to the USSR with Marxism, AKA scientific socialism, forbidding religion and forcing equal mediocrity on everyone. Oh, and it killed 23 million humans. Also, Mao, Pot, Castro.

Fascism comes around everywhere now and again. It always makes for a good time to be a martyr.

Gareth Skarka 6 years, 1 month ago

You seriously need to read a history book about the rise of the Third Reich, because you are VERY mistaken about the "getting rid of the wealthy class" BS.

That's straight out of the fevered rantings of Glenn Beck.

kochmoney 6 years, 1 month ago

Unlike the sock zombies from Linwood, I'm fairly sure Liberty is just trolling and doesn't believe a word of it.

booyalab 6 years, 1 month ago

The platform of Nazi socialism was bent on erasing class barriers. Whether or not that succeeded was not their concern. Politics is mostly about saying the right thing to get your foot in the door.

Kyle Chandler 6 years, 1 month ago

Liberty is just doing his/her job regurgitating Faux News to us all, thanks Liberty, keep up the good work

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

notice it was called "National Socialism" (these were not conservative or religious people in Germany) they were income redistributionists and statists who sought to use government to control others. The opposite of conservatives who support limited government and defend traditional values! We want to protect our own religious freedom but we do not attack others simply based upon their lifestyle we leave them alone to a point. Only when we are asked to give our acceptance to that lifestyle do we have to stand up and fight and resist the power of the "big government". Homosexuals have nothing to fear from conservatives but alot to fear from the big-government people look what Hitler did to homosexuals!

chootspa 6 years, 1 month ago

Also, the German Democratic Republic was the completely democratic republic also known as East Germany. After all, it had the name "Democratic" right in it!

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

point is those were not conservatives or Christians, in fact, many Christians were jailed for standing up against natinoal socialism.

chootspa 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh - ok. So you're in favor of the "Christian Identity Movement?" They're both conservative and Christian. It says so right in the name!

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

Fascism is dead. A statist economic system which tried to run a modern economy with a pre-modern, pseudo-monarchist political system, it was a product of the early 20th century and died before its midpoint. You'll sleep better at night if you upgrade your nightmares to version Mill.2.k.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

This protects those of us who believe that homosexual behavior is a sin and that we should not be forced to condone it! The Bible condemns the practice of homosexuality but does not condemn the homosexual it offers salvation and deliverance by grace through faith in Jesus. Homosexual behavior is an abomination to God and those involved in it should repent and change their lives. No family or person should be forced to rent an apartment to someone who is violating their religious beliefs with their chosen life-style!

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago


You can disapprove of it all you like regardless of whether you rent to them or not.

What if I disapprove of card playing? Or drinking coffee? Or divorcees? Or inter-racial couples? Or interfaith couples? The list of things that religious believers can judge and disapprove of is long and diverse.

When somebody rents a living space, what they do in that space is their business, as long as they're not interfering with other renters (by playing loud music, for example), damaging the space, or breaking the law.

What if you had a personal habit that I found offensive to my religious beliefs? Do you think it's ok for me to not rent to you because of that?

Kathy Theis-Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

Please explain just what you need protection from?

chootspa 6 years, 1 month ago

He/she/it might catch "the gays" if forced to treat others as if they were human beings. Wouldn't want that.

Joseph Jarvis 6 years, 1 month ago

@kansanjayhawk says "Homosexual behavior is an abomination to God ... No family or person should be forced to rent an apartment to someone who is violating their religious beliefs with their chosen life-style!"

This nicely sums up why nondiscrimination laws exist. When a minority population is so fundamentally excluded/disrespected as to be an "abomination" and unworthy of the most basic things--a job, a home, groceries--then the law steps in to ensure that minority has the same rights as everyone else.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

There is a line between public decision making and privated decision making. Religious convictions should trump anti-discrimination laws in some private decision making.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 1 month ago

Because your belief in the fairy god mother trumps an individual's right to shelter, food, and medicine? Wowzer! Seriously delusional, you are....

Kathy Theis-Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

Thanks, Larry - I was too stunned to say the rest.

Kirk Larson 6 years, 1 month ago

I don't want to be stereotypical, but of my friends who are gay, if you rent an apartment to them, when they move out it will be much improved: nice paint, spiffy color-coordinated drapes, and very clean. Your property will be worth more for their residing there.

sputnik67 6 years, 1 month ago

You just don't get it, do you? Read up on what "religious liberty" actually means. It means the government cannot establish one religion and we are all free to practice a religion or not practice one at all. You are free to follow the religion of your choice. But you cannot take your religious beliefs and turn them into laws that the rest of us, who do not practice your religion, must follow. What Kansas is doing is enshrining one particular religion's beliefs into state law, all under the guide of "religious liberty." But what Kansas is doing is precisely what the First Amendment was designed to PREVENT.

Answer me this: If I were allowed to marry my partner or get a job to support myself so that I could eat and, you know, LIVE, or find shelter for myself...then exactly how would you be prevented from attending church and practicing your religious beliefs?

Why is it that some Christians are utterly unable to understand that religious liberty means? It doesn't just pertain to your religion.

headdoctor 6 years, 1 month ago

At the rate these idiots are going to be filling the Kansas Supreme Court and perhaps the Federal Supreme Court dockets, Kansas will be bankrupt just paying legal fees defending their actions.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

I guess you do not like conservative change...we believe in traditional family values and we believe in religious freedom. No one should be forced to tolerate homosexual behavior or give their approval to it. God wants the traditional family unit to survive and thrive and homosexual sin in a direct attack upon Him.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

You don't have to approve of it.

But, that doesn't mean you can deny people jobs, housing, etc. because of that disapproval.

What God thinks of it is his business, and if he chooses to judge and punish it, that's also his business.

In a diverse and free society, many people will do many things that others may disapprove of, for a variety of reasons.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

In some areas you are correct--in other private decisions by individuals with religious convictions--you are not correct the government should not use coercion to force immorality upon people of faith! It really comes down to each individual case and situation about where to draw the law.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Nobody's forcing you to become homosexual.

See my list above - are all of those good reasons to deny people housing, employment, etc.?

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago


Can you point to the part of the bible where God commands the traditional family unit to be a father, a mother & a child?

Because from the Bibles I have read, there are a lot of men in there who have multiple wives and tons of concubines.

In fact, wasn't Abraham the one who that slept with his wife's servant so he could have children because Sarah was considered barren? Sarah, the women that was his wife and also his sister?

That doesn't sound much like what you social conservatives like to call "traditional family values".


sputnik67 6 years, 1 month ago

But my religion doesn't take that view. So why should I be forced to tolerate your behavior or give approval to it. Your views are a direct attack on my God. In the name of religious freedom, who wins?

This is precisely why the Framers wrote that government shall not make any laws establishing a religion.

Enlightenment 6 years, 1 month ago

I'm not sure if the elected officials are really that bigoted or if the people that are electing these fools that ignorant.

Orwell 6 years, 1 month ago

What makes you think it's either/or?

voevoda 6 years, 1 month ago

If a landlord can refuse to rent an apartment to gays because their lifestyle violates his religion, can't he equally refuse to rent an apartment to a divorcee because her lifestyle violates his religion? Or maybe a Hindu landlord can refuse to rent to people who eat beef.
It actually doesn't violate anybody's Christian tenets to rent an apartment to somebody who is sinner--no matter what the sin. So even in religious terms, this law is ridiculous.

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

"Or maybe a Hindu landlord can refuse to rent to people who eat beef. "

Yes, yes, a hundred times yes. Atheists can refuse to rent to people who pray, Christians can refuse to rent to people who don't. The girl's basketball team can refuse to allow men to play, the AARP can refuse to allow toddlers to join. It's called "freedom of association" and it's a good thing. Unless, of course, one hates how other people use their freedom.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

I imagine that if an atheist landlord tried to not rent to a Christian based on their religious beliefs, the Christian would be the first to claim "freedom of religion" and fight it, don't you think?

The point is a good one - Christians forget there are other religions, which come with other beliefs.

And, we try to balance "freedom of association" with the basic rights we feel all citizens should have.

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

"the Christian would be the first to claim "freedom of religion" and fight it, don't you think?"

It's quite possible. They screamed about Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport who chose not to transport people carrying liquor or dogs. They were in the wrong, the Muslims were in the right.

This is not a team sport, it's a question of whether people are going to be free to chose with whom they do business.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

And a question of what we consider basic rights that should be available to all citizens.

sputnik67 6 years, 1 month ago

You clearly hate America and the Constitution. You're not interested in living in a pluralistic society and dealign with all that this entails. To you, it's just everyone for themselves and let the magical market work everything out. Sorry, but people's basic rights in society are not subject to market forces.

Also, freedom of association doesn't mean what you think it means, but then that's not a surprise.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

I do not agree...there is a balance in all things "moderation in all things" ... there could be circumstances in which a Christian might want to to take a stand on such issues even if it is not the norm for him to do so. It really should be a "private decision" and not a government decision. The issue really is how large of a federal government do you want and how much power do you want them to exercise over all of our lives?

Kathy Theis-Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

I pity you kj. "There could be a circumstance in which a "christian" might want to take a stand.............." You mean such as a woman taking a stand regarding her body? Why is your religion a private decision and others are not? You are correct to say the issue is really about how much power the government has over our personal lives - keep the government out of my private decisions regarding my body, my mind, and my beliefs.
I must remind you, according to your belief, that you have sinned greatly by your judgements of others. You may want to pray about that.

Enlightenment 6 years, 1 month ago

So if this goes through, I think the gay community should become a religious group so they can have the same protection and rights.

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

Or gays could buy houses and rent them to other gays. That way they could do what they want, and others could do what they want, and there would be no need for government coercion at all.

Enlightenment 6 years, 1 month ago

providing the bank lends them money even though they're gay.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

So you don't think that people, regardless of things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. should be able to rent an apartment, get a job, a loan, or similar things that have little/nothing to do with those attributes?

If black people want to rent an apartment, they should rent from other black people? Women? Jews? Etc.?

I thought we decided this issue a while back, and in the other direction.

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

"...should be able to rent an apartment, get a job, a loan, or similar things that have little/nothing to do with those attributes?"

I don't believe in laws that forbid them from doing any of those things, no. Anyone should be free to do business with anyone they wish, and to not do business with anyone they don't wish.

sputnik67 6 years, 1 month ago

Yes! Let's bring back segregation! What a wonderful idea.

Mischka 5 years, 11 months ago

Oooooo! Like whites buying houses and renting them ONLY to other whites! That's a great idea! "White Haven" "Whiteville" - I seem to remember some suburbs of Kansas City and various towns in Kansas like that. But maybe I'm imagining things.

Or maybe little religious compounds where only people of the same religion can interact with each other. Maybe entire CITIES like that. " I'm really down with that idea, can't you just see it? "City of Protestantland - All Catholics must be out of town by sundown!"

I wonder why someone hasn't thought of that before? Why, it keeps people who aren't like other people from interacting and being uncomfortable (and keeps the undesirables in their place)! end sarcasm

hujiko 6 years, 1 month ago

"where ignorance is common sense and senselessness the norm"

Jillian Andrews 6 years, 1 month ago

I literally just threw up in my mouth. Welcome to Brownbackistan.

mom_of_three 6 years, 1 month ago

What if someone refuses to rent to college students because they are afraid they will party, even if there is no proof beforehand? Or refuse to rent to a single woman because she might be on birth control? or refuse to rent to a single mother because she wasn't married and had children? And how do you prove that your religion prohibits those things? Do you need a letter from your minister and several witnesses saying you go to church every Sunday or just say that you are a spiritual person and it violates my beliefs?

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

If a person with a house to rent has too high of standards for the market to bear, the house will not be rented. Who loses but the renter who then receives a big fat nothing as a return on investment?

Renters are in the rental business to make money. They don't make money if the place is not rented. If they don't make money, then other renters will buy the place and rent it out. It's econ101, people.

tomatogrower 6 years, 1 month ago

Well that didn't work too well in the South for blacks, did it? Why not study the repression that has occurred, and people were still making money. You live in some kind of cloud world not based in the real world.

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

Au contraire. If you talked to old blacks or studied actual history rather than getting your history from PBS, you would know that that even with segregation - which was a government-enforced program, not freedom - there was no black homelessness as a result of a lack of rentals. If there is money to be made, someone will make it.

tomatogrower 6 years, 1 month ago

Ah yes. Dirt floors and leaky roofs cared for by white landlords who could care less about anything buy that rent check. No homelessness, but no homes to compare to the white folks homes, that's for sure.

Oh for the good old days when landlords could keep blacks in jews in their own neighborhoods, so whites didn't have to be bothered. That's what the Tea Party wants isn't it? A return to the good ole days.

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

"landlords could keep blacks in jews in their own neighborhoods"

There are no black neighborhoods today? That's tremendous news!

mom_of_three 6 years, 1 month ago

No, there wasn't black homelessness as a result of a lack of rentals. Only a lack of good houses and good neighborhoods.

mom_of_three 6 years, 1 month ago

so you are thinking that economics is going to win out over this bill? That people aren't going to be affected by this bill? Fine, it may not work in the housing market, but it sure could work in the employment line, and where ever else.

sputnik67 6 years, 1 month ago

Garbage. What you're saying is that only Christians have rights to liberty and the marketplace can do whatever it likes as long as it doesn't trample on a Christian person's right to hate and discriminate. But no one else has any rights in the matter.

And the price of a rental being too high for the market to bear has nothing at all to do with discriminatory rental practices. Nice try.

Fossick 6 years, 1 month ago

Dude, seriously. I did not say the price of the rental, I said the standards of the renter. That difference makes all the difference.

Where on this entire thread did I mention Christians other than to agree with Jafs that they whine when they don't get their way just like everyone else?

You make two assertions, both not only incorrect but seemingly pulled from the very bowels of, well, you get the idea... I suggest a remedial reading course or at least a nice glass of burgundy might help you.

parrothead8 6 years, 1 month ago

It would be great if people would stop using religion as an excuse to discriminate. Jesus wouldn't have denied shelter to someone because of their sexual orientation.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 1 month ago

How do you know what Jesus would do? Have you spoken to him lately? I doubt it. Jesus had principles and was a great teacher, his religion prohibited homosexuality and called it an abomination. So do you really think he would go back on his beliefs? Do you think he would allow what God has made unlawful?

Too many people think Jesus would just turn his cheek to the awfulness of this life. He wouldn't, he would stand against it but try to do it in a peaceful way. Asking who was without sin so they could "throw the first stone" didn't mean "everyone sins so its ok". It is NOT OK and means that only God has retribution, not mankind.

Mick32 6 years, 1 month ago

Your are clueless of the character of Jesus. Just because you go in to a church every week and listen to a preacher and read the bible that doesn't mean you represent or know anything about the man who lived 2000 years ago. Jesus never said one word about homosexuality. You take your position about him from words of men and institutions hungry for power and control over you (which Jesus spoke often about). I challenge you to read the gospel of Thomas. Unlike the synoptic gospels of the bible, it is not written as a narrative by someone else. It is written as if someone followed Jesus around and wrote down what he said. It paints a very different portrait of the man that in no way resembles the Man that is so worshiped today. Jesus loved people. When you love people you try and understand them. He knew the world was full of imperfection and variation (Homosexuality is present in all species) and he had compassion for people and their struggles. He certainly wouldn't condone people deceiving the deepest part of another person (what gay men do when they marry a woman and vise versa) to meet some kind of social acceptance.

I am amazed that the so called "Christians" of today who are spiritually more like Hitler than the spiritually pure soul that lived so long ago. You truly need to examine yourself my friend.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

Jesus did address sin. He said as it was in the days of Sodom so shall it be when the Son of man returns-- the primary sin of Sodom was Sodomy (homosexual behavior)! The first chapter of the Book of Romans address the issue specifically and calls it a perversion! Christianity calls on homosexuals to repent and receive the gift of Christ as their personal savior and to turn away from this sin.

Kathy Theis-Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

I think you need to read again. The emphasis on "sodomy" was brought about by the catholic church, in yet another of their interpretations to fit their own ideals. You never mention the main sins were their unkindness, their inhospitable actions, their treatment of the poor, blasphemy and bloodshed. How in the world could you ignore the current actions of your religions extremists regarding their economic crimes, property crimes, their treatment of the children, the poor and the elderly? And what of the bloodshed in the name of your religion? Did you ignore the cry of the young girl who had given a beggar bread only to be burned alive for her actions? THIS is the cry god heard. This cry can be heard today as well - from the children, the poor and the elderly that YOUR beloved leaders have turned their backs upon.

Kathy Theis-Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

Please give me the text in Romans, Chapter 1 that you claim talks about sodomy specifically. I certainly can't find it.

JohnPH 6 years, 1 month ago

The sins of sodom were recounted numerous times in the bible, even by Jesus, and homosexuality was never mentioned (or even directly the sexual nature of the possible abuse of the two angels by the city folk ... which you seem to want to extrapolate to broadly mean homosecuality / gay couples).

The whole story was really about inhospitality, and was understood as such for long before and after the NT was written. This whole "it was all about sodomy / gays" is a fairly new political invention which is ironically being used to not only to throw away the main lesson of Sodom and Gamorrah ... but directly support the abusive inhospitality it warned of. It's hard to think of a much better analogy to the legislation were talking about (a bill that makes it easier to kick strangers out from house and livelihood).

PS: Every time "sodomite" is used in scripture, it refers to cult, shrine, temple prostitutes who worshiped the Canaanite fertility goddess.

somedude20 6 years, 1 month ago

what a joke! thanks for the laugh. how do you know jesus/god/virgins are real? i have been looking and aint found none of dem in dis here town

TheShaman 6 years, 1 month ago

"But State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, defended his bill, saying it was meant to make sure government could not infringe on an individual's religious beliefs."

So what if I belong to a church that is not only ok with gay marriage, but supports it and is willing to conduct gay marriage ceremonies? Most Universalist churches are good with gay marriage and I've been to one at an Episcopal Church and officiated by an Episcopal priest.

Now say I'm a state worker and the state tells me I can't put my partner on my health insurance benefits. Is not the state now infringing on my religious beliefs by telling me that my church sanctioned marriage is invalid?

TheShaman 6 years, 1 month ago

Well, now that I read the text of the bill I see that they've covered themselves there.

"Nothing in this act shall be construed to...authorize any relationship, marital or otherwise, that would violate section 16 of article 15 of the constitution of the state of Kansas"

Business as usual...Your religion is cool, so long as it's the same as our religion.

Linda Endicott 6 years, 1 month ago

Ahhh... So the state gives themselves an automatic "out"... But no one else gets one...

How democratic of them...

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

Does that preacher even believe in the Bible as the Word of God? I doubt that that preacher believes in the cardinal doctrines of the faith--starting with Christ's resurrection-- most Episcopal Churches became apostate many years ago although there are exceptions. The true born again believers who are in the Episcopal Church reject homosexual marriage adn homosexual behavior because it is against God and condemned in the Bible. Read Romans Chapter 1 repent and turn to Christ as Savior!

JohnPH 6 years, 1 month ago

Well. If you care about being literal, you'd probably not want to consider all the (political) retranslations and re-interpretations over this issue through the centuries. And in that case, the only bad word spoken is in Leviticus ... and they were of course directly referring to the male temple prostitute problem of the time (IE: not gay couples). Any other possible mentionings are neutral or positive. Jesus himself blessing a likely gay couple (Centurion and 'Pais' in Matthew 8, Luke 7), Jesus's use and the church's early use of "born eunuch" (physically capable but with no desire for women) in neutral or positive light, the Johnathan and David love story (could have been platonic [and still good if not], but specifically used 'ahab,' 'qashar,' etc. in contexts widely understood as romantic love at the time [and used in the bible as such for straight couples, wed or to be wed], etc.

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

So when are we going to get a bill brought forth that addresses jobs?

Paul R Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

+1. This one, like many other strange initiatives this spring, should provide some work for attorneys. Maybe that's the jobs program?

Mischka 5 years, 11 months ago

After all, lawyers, doctors and other special groups are getting special relief from taxation on their occupational income, leaving the rest of us to shoulder the bill for Kansas' debt issues. So this seems to be going along right in hand...

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

The tax bill is moving forward in the close attention and you will find that the liberal Democrats don't want any forward movement in that area either...this is a cunnard!

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

The tax bill is not a jobs bill. We've tried lowering taxes many times and it does not create jobs.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what a "cunnard" is but it sounds dirty. Your mother should wash your mouth out with soap for using such nasty language.

Abdu Omar 6 years, 1 month ago

How do you know what Jesus would do? Have you spoken to him lately? I doubt it. Jesus had principles and was a great teacher, his religion prohibited homosexuality and called it an abomination. So do you really think he would go back on his beliefs? Do you think he would allow what God has made unlawful?

Too many people think Jesus would just turn his cheek to the awfulness of this life. He wouldn't, he would stand against it but try to do it in a peaceful way. Asking who was without sin so they could "throw the first stone" didn't mean "everyone sins so its ok". It is NOT OK and means that only God has retribution, not mankind.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

The Old Testament contains many such passages about various acts that are held to be "unclean" - do you abhor all of them?

Or is it only this one thing that bothers you so much?

The passage you cite means, as far as I can tell, that we shouldn't be so hasty to rush to judgement and condemnation, because we're all imperfect. What God is or isn't doing in that regard isn't my concern - if he is in the business of judging all of us and punishing us, that's his business.

Personally, I don't believe that's the case - I believe in a loving and supportive God.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

God is loving and supportive as he helps us all remove the sin from our lives! We cannot just justify our behavior and then claim that God is loving and supportive. God condems homosexual behavior (read Romans chapter 1) and calls for all homosexuals to turn to God and repent and leave that wicked lifestyle!

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

No answer to my question?

I say that God is not a punitive, judgmental God - that's my belief.

We'll all see someday who's right (or maybe we won't).

Greg Cooper 6 years, 1 month ago

YES, you do get it!! when you say "...he helps us all remove the sin from our lives!" Unfortunately, the mote in your eye prevents you from listening, really listening and comprehending, your own words.

God (yours, the Christian one) never intended for us to judge others but to remove our own sins. Hence, "Judge not lest ye be judged."

Your religious beliefs are not allowed to run the lives of others who may have chosen or ben born into a life different from yours.

Any religious person will work on making his life acceptable in the sight of his "God" rather than judge the life of another.

Believe what you will, but you may not tell me how to live or love, how to believe, or even to believe at all.

In that vein, you may not be allowed to discriminate against me just because I'm Methodist and you're Baptist: I'm black and you're white; I'm Christian and you're Muslim.

Don't you get it? God is loving and supportive. God will judge, in the end, what's acceptable and what's not. God is not a bigot. You will be judged by the life you live and how you make life better for each and every human, not just those with whom you agree. Your inability to accept each human and his/her differences from you will be tough for God to ovelook.

GibsonJunkie 6 years, 1 month ago

Are you kidding? Infringement of Constitutional rights is much more important in the long run than Danny Manning going to coach at Tulsa. Get a grip.

Crazy_Larry 6 years, 1 month ago

Beer and reality television. Mana from the gawds for this idiocracy.

Mixolydian 6 years, 1 month ago

This is just the watered down state version of the Federal RLUIPA law (Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act) It was signed into law by Bill Clinton. It's not that earth shattering.

headdoctor 6 years, 1 month ago

The intent and depth of effect that the Kansas Republicans are going for is nothing like the purpose of the Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act.

Joseph Jarvis 6 years, 1 month ago

@Mixolydian: You've missed the point. The objective of the bill--eliminate nondiscrimination protections for LGBT Kansans--was grafted onto a religious freedom bill for political cover.

Jeff Supernaw 6 years, 1 month ago

Supported by the Concerned Women for America of Kansas. CWAKs. ; )

headdoctor 6 years, 1 month ago

One really has to wonder if the alleged 495,000 members have any idea what the other 5,000 members in Kansas are doing or what they are supporting. It would appear that the Kansas group is nothing more than a lap dog propaganda unit of the Heritage Foundation.

KSManimal 6 years, 1 month ago

Cite the Bible all you want, vertigo. However, this isn't about your religious text. This is about the government passing a law. You might have missed it, but in this country we don't make laws to promote one particular religious view over others. Read the US Constitution, please.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

we also have freedom of religion which means that Christians cannot be forced to accept any sin--including homosexuality--we can practice our faith which include the prohibition against this sin.

somedude20 6 years, 1 month ago

Here here vertigo! You may not have the best eyesight but your typing hand cracks out some good stuff!

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago


So don't be homosexual - problem solved.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

There are no "suitable" sexual partners of the same sex. The Bible is very clear we must reserve sex for the marriage relationship between a man and a woman to procreate and nurture children and for sexual pleasure. That is the only plan approved by God according to the Bible!

punabob 5 years, 11 months ago

Except that the Bible is not clear that sex is for marriage between a man and woman. God directly tells men to take the women they rape as wives. Many old testament characters had multiple wives. Abraham has sex with Sarah's daughter. Lot's daughters are ordered to have sex with random strangers and on and on. Your vision of marriage is wholly man-made. And while I'm on this topic, if you're a literalist, must not good old Eve have had sex with her own sons?

KSManimal 6 years, 1 month ago

Anyone's right to practice their religion goes just as far as their right to swing their fist: it ends where another person's nose begins.

I certainly hope that the day Brownback signs this bass-ackwards piece of crap into law...every gay landlord in the state immediately evicts all their Christian tenants; every gay restaurant owner immediately refuses to serve Christians; etc., etc.,........ Ditto for pagans, atheists, etc., etc.,.....Give these holier-than-thou donkey orifices a taste of their own BS.

pocket_of_sunshine 6 years, 1 month ago

+1 Let's see how fast they cry foul and this all gets turned around. It seems no one is addressing the other side of this and that is the fact there are many other religions out there. That means those other religions also get to discriminate against the so-called Christians that are pushing for this ridiculousness.

texburgh 6 years, 1 month ago

Supported by the Kansas Catholic Conference. Yet one more nail in the coffin of the Catholic Church. I was once a practicing Catholic but as the church moved more and more toward becoming another evangelical, fundamentalist quasi-religious organization, I stopped going. I still see myself as a Catholic but not the new kind of Catholic. I guess that makes me a CINO - the Catholic equivalent of Republicans like Charlie Roth (now called RINOs by their own party). Old school Republicans like Dole and Kassebaum and Eisenhower could never be elected in Kansas today. Just as they are being purged from the Republican party, Catholics like myself who were raised in a church that put social justice, workers rights, defense of the poor first - the 60's "radical priest" kind of church - have been marginalized and driven out. I won't go back.

Bob_Keeshan 6 years, 1 month ago

This bill isn't intended to protect religious freedom, it is intended to protect a particular sect of christian freedom.

However, in their self-righteous zeal, the bill's supporters have actually opened up additional protections for groups like the Phelps family. Supporters of this bill want to "protect" those who hide their hate behind religion.

What they are doing is protecting those who openly hate like Fred Phelps.

oldvet 6 years, 1 month ago

Although there are times when I want to sock the guy, Fred Phelps has the same First Ammendment rights that you and I have. We can shut him up when you are prepared to relinquish your own rights. I don't have to like him and I don't have to like his message, but I have to acknowledge his right to deliver that message.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Anti-discrimination laws don't change hearts and minds, they change actions.

It's interesting that your wife's family has that perspective - perhaps there are enough places for them to eat, rent, etc. today that they can feel that way. But historically, that wasn't the case, which was the reason for the laws.

Do they really want "no blacks allowed" signs again?

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Part of the civil rights movement was the legislation that was enacted.

As I said, legislation doesn't change attitudes, it changes behavior.

But, it's also possible that exposure to people we don't know much about can change our attitudes about them - I'm often struck by the attitudes people have about gay people, and I'm pretty sure they don't know many of them, and none of them well.

It sounds appealing to kick Phelps out, but historically, minorities are the ones discriminated against, not male white Christians.

How far does the logic go? Is it ok with your extended family if they're denied jobs, loans, health insurance, etc.?

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

That's surprising, if true.

I don't know many minorities who wouldn't mind being discriminated against.

Laws absolutely change behavior - that's the whole reason we have them. If you argue that's not the case, then why have laws at all?

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Laws don't eliminate crime, of course - there are other factors.

And, they don't eliminate things like discrimination.

But they affect behavior to some extent.

We can't do a controlled double blind study to determine how much - that's the way human life works much of the time.

usnsnp 6 years, 1 month ago

In the military you do not ask what a persons religion is, you do not talk about religion and for the most part you do not care what religion a fellow sailor practices. All you care about is now good a job the other person does, because no matter what religion you are, you may have to rely on another person to save your life. Any body that attempts go gain power or advantage over others, or says one religion is better than another, has lost the true meaning of what religion is.

Jayhawk1958 6 years, 1 month ago

I"m afraid to travel now because of our bad reputation as a state.

Prairielander 6 years, 1 month ago

Ha! My wife apologizes whenever she tells someone we're from Kansas. She mitigates by saying we are from Lawrence which she refers to as "an island of hope in a sea of ignorance".

Jayhawk1958 6 years, 1 month ago

Why should I leave a state that I love because of some irrelavant right-wing nut jobs?

William Weissbeck 6 years, 1 month ago

How sincere does your religious belief have to be? If you go to church once a month, is that enough? And what if your church leaders are against the discrimination, do you get to have your own opinions? And if like Fred Phelps, you declare yourself a church, do you get to have your own beliefs?

Jimo 6 years, 1 month ago

Why does Kansas keep begging to be sued at the taxpayers' expense?

I would direct the Legislature to Romer v. Evans, then Employment Division v. Smith, and then United States v. Lee.

This strikes me as a variant on this "stand your ground" gun law where "fear" is used as a mask for garden variety manslaughter while here "religion" is used to engage in garden variety discrimination.

When one engages in commerce, one sets aside one's peculiar religious beliefs, and is bound to the ordinary application of the laws. Do you find that this unacceptably conflicts with your religion? Don't engage in commerce then. No one makes you enter the real estate rental market!

Want to pass a state law keeping localities from protecting gays from discrimination? SC already said no. Trying to complicate the matter by invoking the 1st amendment to empower you to force other people to be bound by religious beliefs in conflict with their own religious beliefs isn't going to cut it.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

And yet, commerce is regulated, in a variety of ways.

Interstate commerce is regulated by the federal government, with the ICC.

Intrastate commerce is regulated by the state.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Both sectors have advantages and disadvantages.

The ideal arrangement would be one that maximizes the advantages of both and minimizes the disadvantages of them.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Based on what?

The ICC is in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution - it's not even a later amendment. How can it be unconstitutional?

States regulate "intrastate" commerce, as I mentioned - that's commerce inside a particular state.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

I'm talking about the Interstate Commerce Clause.

You can argue we shouldn't have any government regulation, or taxes, etc. but it's not consistent with the Constitution.

William Weissbeck 6 years, 1 month ago

These arguments are very close to those that were invalidated by the Civil Rights Acts. Despite Rand Paul's rather unique view of Constitutional Law, private business owners could be compelled to abide by those laws. Even if you were a restaurant owner so far off the beaten path that no out of state person had ever patronized your establishment.

tomatogrower 6 years, 1 month ago

The first time a business discriminates, then we should organize a boycott. We have a right to do business with whomever we want also. Of course, that won't work in little towns, since sometimes that's all there is. It could really hurt some in larger towns though. Remember, get the word out when someone is discriminated against on "religious grounds". We need to start a tweet following and a website. Put those businesses and people out there for all to see.

punabob 5 years, 11 months ago

Because this "caring for each other" worked out so well for the slaves. There is a reason that government is involved in this business. Minorities and the underclass have historically not been well served by mankind's caring.

punabob 5 years, 11 months ago

We have decided a long time ago that the way to really ensure caring for each other in these particular matters is to enact laws and guidelines which fairly protect all people regardless of what bigoted discriminations any one person may dream up.

Jimo 6 years, 1 month ago

I've related this before but I'll mention it again.

Some number of years ago I was asked to accompany the upper management of a company that was considering moving some operations to Kansas. (I knew them already from business dealings. I lived in Kansas.)

Long story short, in the course of the "sales jobs" that the state economic development folks and some local city/county people from the locality they were looking at did, these people wanted to emphasize the "livability" of Kansas. Ironically, this should have been a paean to the virtue of small town life, low crime, decent schools, etc. But unfortunately for one fellow this meant something along the lines of 'we have a lot of stable married couples not broken families or homosexuals or child molesters.'

Needless to say, Kansas didn't get that relocation. Maybe a hundred fairly good paying jobs lost.

Seems that the Kansas GOP just doesn't get that a closed minded approach to the diversity of our fellow man isn't just nice, or some minimum of politeness - it's good business. Kansas isn't going to signal that it's "open for business" by screaming "we don't like people different from us." (But hey, I'm sure Kansans already have enough good jobs.)

Joseph Jarvis 6 years, 1 month ago

Lateralis, you keep talking about property rights... except this isn't a property rights issue.

kansanjayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

I guess calling names--nuts--might make you feel better but the reality is that the freedom of religion is very important in this nation and that includes the abiltiy to call sin what it is sin! We should not be compelled against our religious beliefs to engage in our allow our private property to be used for things that violate our consciences. This is a good piece of legislation to protect all Kansans in the ability to worship God and obey His commands as they see fit.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Worship as you like, and don't do anything that violates your conscience - if you think homosexuality is wrong, don't engage in gay sex.

Call homosexuality whatever you like.

The question is whether or not your beliefs should allow you to discriminate against others in housing, employment, etc.

If the answer is yes, then you have to extend it to others, who may have different beliefs and judgments. You don't ever answer my questions about that - I wonder why not.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

More magical thinking in the legislature: "Oh religion... What will you doubt next? If ovens didn't have lights you'd think muffins were magic too."

grimpeur 6 years, 1 month ago

The answer, actually, is no. Credit checks etc. are not classified as discrimination by law. Refusing to rent to hispanics, gays, or nerf-herders is discrimination by law.

Simple. Bigots want to be exempt from the latter.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Denying somebody housing, or a job, etc. is harming them.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Since people need jobs and housing, denying them those is harming them.

And, you absolutely have the right to get married - the SC has held that marriage is a "fundamental" right - see Loving v. Virginia.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

As a society, we seem to have decided the answer is no.

It's a question of balancing freedom with basic rights for all.

Thanks :-)

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

I would never think of stopping somebody from practicing their religion on their own property.

Renting to somebody that you disapprove of wouldn't do that.

You can still believe whatever you like about their conduct, pray whenever and however you like, go to the church of your choice, etc.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

No, it limits your freedom to discriminate.

You still have the right to make reasonable decisions based on things like credit history, references from landlords, etc.

Property rights aren't absolute and without limitations.

Ken Lewis 6 years, 1 month ago

Generally, these bills/laws introduced and passed to "protect religious freedom" have NOTHING to do with religious freedom. It is usually motiviated by attack on thier opponents.

Back in 2005, the US House passed such a bill, with the same name, that had nothing to do with religion. What the law did was bar plantiffs, who sue the federal govt base on Constitutional grounds, from recovering legal fees if they win thier case. It was intended to bankrupt the ACLU and similar organizations with a flood of fascist regulations that no one could afford to fight.

mom_of_three 6 years, 1 month ago

Question to those of sound mind and body??

Can you ask someone's religion on a rental form or ask about someone's sexual orientation? I didn't think you could.

SO how will they know someone is gay before they rent to them?? Will owners just assume that a person who has dark skin and an accent will be middle eastern and a different religion?

and what if a house is rented to a gay person, who doesn't divulge their orientation? Do the owners have a right to kick them out?

Ken Lewis 6 years, 1 month ago

Clearly, the legislature is down to pure partisan politics instead of solving the state's problems. Must be getting hear the end of the session.....thank God. We can all breathe a sigh of relief when they go home.

Joseph Jarvis 6 years, 1 month ago

@lateralis: Excuse my apparent ignorance, but where in the constitution does it guarantee property rights that trump nondiscrimination laws?

MarchHare 6 years, 1 month ago

Dear God, Dear Lord, Dear Vague-Muscular-Man-with-a-Beard-or-a-Sword, Dear "Good All Seeing Being",

It's my way or the highway Yahweh! The blue balled anti-masterbater,the Great all-loving faggot hater. I'd like to thank your holy might for making me both rich and white and though this is your day of rest, I come to you with one request: There's so much pain beyond this steeple - Wars and drugs and homeless people; Sadness where there should be joy; Hate and rape and Soulja Boy - A world in darkness needs your light and I'm sure your schedule is pretty tight, But... My dog just had surgery, if you could fix that first?

In case you need a map to point you in the right direction, the above is both cynical and sarcastic. That said, the hypocrisy and blasphemy of those who would call themselves Christian in support of this bill is outragous. You ought to seriously re-examine the most basic tenets of the religion. Axioms such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "Love thy neighbor" come to mind and as I recall I don't remember there being an asterick specificing that it was ok for you hate them or discriminate against them because they're gay/lesbian/transgender. In fact, as memory serves, doesn't the Bible make it explictly clear that those who would dare to judge or openly condemn other human beings (as though they were as imnipotent, benevolent or righteous as God himself!) shall be damned? And I don't know if the Bouncer Pete at those pearly gates is going to buy your repentence story with wall of hate-filled text you pound into your keyboard nightly standing against you.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

More BS from the Browniacs, but we should be used to this by now.

jimmyjms 6 years, 1 month ago

I've never seen someone as equally ignorant of both basic constitutional law AND of the religion they claim as their own as kansanjayhawk. A disgrace to this state, and in no way representative of a Jayhawk. Pathetic.

Paul R Getto 6 years, 1 month ago

JJ: Be nice. The great thing about religion is you get to choose the god you like, then interpret the books as you see fit. Leave these folks alone. We just need to promote good governance and a just society, which can be done without leaning on any of the crutches being used in this legislation. The three jewels, compassion, moderation and humility should do it, and nearly all the religions promote these concepts, when they are not trying to run someone else's life.

Elaine Elliott 6 years, 1 month ago

Can't people use the Bible to discriminate against mixed race couples? Oh wait that's already happened, but then we had the Civil Rights movement. When Kansas decided to stop teaching evolution, they must have meant all types of evolution. This is embarrassing and disgusting. How are we moving backwards so quickly?

All movement is not progress, just as all motion is not forward. Anonymous

Joe Hyde 6 years, 1 month ago

This "Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act" looks like a legal tool devised to let anybody psycho-sexually sodomize just about anyone they don't like...just so long as the sodomizer keeps one hand pressed against a Bible while commiting the offense.

Hudson Luce 5 years, 11 months ago

It might be a useful exercise to determine which landlords and which businesses in Lawrence will refuse to do business or rent to LGBT people, and publish the results on the Web just to have things out in the open and not hidden. The same thing goes for the rest of Douglas County and the counties in Kansas. If we're going to have legalized discrimination, it should be open for all to see.

Hudson Luce 5 years, 11 months ago

It would be quite legal under this law to deny services and refuse to rent to divorced and remarried "Christians" because they are actively engaging in adultery, which is sinful behavior directly denounced by Jesus: Matthew 19:9 "Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”

Chuck Anziulewicz 5 years, 11 months ago

QUESTION: Will an evangelical Christian business owner be able to fire a Jewish or Muslim or Atheist employee because he has "religious freedom" to do so?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.