Archive for Sunday, February 10, 2013

New version of Kansas Religious Preservation Act appears to address gay rights concerns

February 10, 2013


— The Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, which last year was portrayed by some as anti-gay, has re-emerged this year, but in a form that gay rights advocates say they can live with.

“We don’t have an issue with the bill,” said Tom Witt, executive director of the Kansas Equality Coalition.

During the 2012 legislative session, Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration and state Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, pushed for the Religious Preservation Act, saying it was needed to prevent the government from interfering with an individual’s beliefs.

“Free exercise of religion is at the core of who we are as a people,” Kinzer had said. Lt. Gov. Jeff Colyer cited the health care overhaul signed by President Barack Obama that requires most employers to cover birth control as an example of the federal government trampling on religious liberties.

The original version of the Religious Preservation Act would have prohibited government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it furthered a compelling interest and was done in the least restrictive way possible.

But a person couldn’t cite religious beliefs to discriminate against individuals covered by the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. This includes discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, disability, national origin or ancestry.

Gay rights advocates said that because sexual orientation wasn’t covered by the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, the Religious Preservation Act could allow someone to use his or her religious beliefs to discriminate against gays.

Lesbians and gays opposed the bill at the time, with Witt calling it “nothing more than legislative gay-bashing.”

And Lawrence officials said the Religious Freedom Act would have trumped a city of Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that protects sexual orientation.

During debate on the bill, House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, asked Kinzer whether under his bill an apartment owner could cite religious beliefs to fight a complaint if refusing to rent to a same-sex couple.

“That is generally correct,” Kinzer said.

The House approved the bill, but it was ignored by Senate leaders.

Witt said the new version — House Bill 2203 — is not limited by acts of discrimination under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination.

“It was a surprise when I saw the bill,” he said.

Kinzer said he believes the new version of the bill accomplishes the same goal as the old version.

“The bill was always intended just to be a shield for people who want to basically make sure that governmental action is not impinging on people’s religious liberties,” Kinzer said.

“My hope is that the way the bill is drafted now will take an issue off the table that I personally always felt was a red herring, but then obviously some people were concerned about,” he said.

Witt said he will continue to watch the bill closely, noting that it can always be amended.

“It’s a long process,” he said.


chootspa 5 years, 4 months ago

Don't we already have a Constitution for that?

Paul R Getto 5 years, 4 months ago

Red Herring might be the new state fish.

weeslicket 5 years, 4 months ago

new state bird: cuckoo new state tree: weeping willow new state plant: crab grass new state insect: stinkbug new state mammal: dusky shrew new state micro-organism: virus (non-specified) new state mythical creature: chimera

lawslady 5 years, 4 months ago

$5000 per bill is what it costs taxpayers on average (printing, staff hours, mailngs, etc)already so they can pander, grandstand and show off. THE US CONSTITUTION already gives the highest legal protections available to religous freedom from government. Anything else is trying to do more or is unnecessary. Stupid or sneaky.

Currahee 5 years, 4 months ago

As far as I see, it's their money and they're paying for coverage. If you don't like it you can find employment elsewhere or take the extra money and get your own coverage. "But it's not fair!" Well that just depends on your perception of fair. If you can get something you want it's "fair" but when you have something you don't like it becomes "not fair". Deal with it, it's life.

weeslicket 5 years, 4 months ago

such an irony. i feel i need protection from THESE people's religious beliefs.

geekin_topekan 5 years, 4 months ago

No irony weeslicket, the first amendment does just that--it protects us from becoming a theocracy, the very form of government that Europeans fled in the first place.

Over the years it has been skewed, by those who disrespect or belittle our patriot's sacrifice, into a freedom of religion, when in reality its true purpose is to provide a freedom from religion.

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

Those religious business people who do not provide birth control coverage in the insurance for their employees are violating their employee's religious beliefs, and violating the Christian concept of free will. The birth control is there, it's up to employee to use or not use it according to their religious freedom and free will. Employers should not be making those decisions.

So whose religious freedom trumps the other? The person who decides to use or not to use the birth control. Employees can just pass on the added cost, if there is any to the employees. Most companies do that anyway. They pay for part of it, and the employee pays for part of it. There aren't too many companies paying the entire insurance costs anymore anyway, so they shouldn't have as much say in the coverage. That started long before the Affordable Care Act. I guess if the company agrees to pay for the whole insurance policy, then they would have a choice, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.