Archive for Friday, February 3, 2017

California travel ban on Kansas affecting KU basketball; LGBT rights group seeks repeal of ‘religious freedom’ law

February 3, 2017


— There will be no Jayhawk basketball games with the University of California anytime soon, largely due to a law Kansas enacted last year that the state of California has said discriminates against the LGBT community.

University of Kansas officials confirmed Friday that athletic teams from public colleges and universities in California are no longer allowed to travel to schools in Kansas because of a "religious freedom" law in Kansas that says campus student groups here can discriminate in their membership against people who do not share the group's religious beliefs or practices.

That includes religious groups that ban gay students from joining due to the group's religious beliefs.

KU Athletics spokesman Jim Marchiony said KU had been in preliminary talks with the University of California-Berkeley to schedule a series of "home-and-home" games. But a new law in California that took effect Jan. 1 now prohibits that.

"Cal said they couldn't do it," Marchiony said.

The new California law, passed in 2015, prohibits state-funded or state-sponsored travel to states with laws deemed to be discriminatory against the LGBT community, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has determined it applies to Kansas as well as Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Before Kansas enacted Senate Bill 175 last year, students were allowed to form exclusive clubs and associations. But colleges and universities, including KU, only provided funding and access to university facilities to groups that were open to all students.

The hoped-for series between UC-Berkeley and KU is the only athletics event that has been affected so far, according to KU officials. Larry Keating, special assistant to the KU athletics director, told the Journal-World Friday that there are no major sports games scheduled between KU and any California team, and if any games do come up, he said they would be the result of contracts that were signed before Jan. 1 when the law took effect.

But the California travel ban could have far-reaching implications for other kinds of travel, including academic conferences, government agency conferences and other types of travel.

Now, a leading LGBT rights advocacy group in Kansas that opposed the law in the first place is now calling for its repeal, saying it was clear that the intent of the law was to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Equality Kansas announced this week that it has introduced a bill, Senate Bill 139, to repeal the campus religious freedom law.

"Although the legislation was silent on the reasons a group might want to reject members, floor debate in the House and Senate made clear the target of the bill was our LGBT population," Equality Kansas executive director Tom Witt said.

The Kansas bill passed by veto-proof margins last year: 30-8 in the Senate and 81-41 in the House. All Douglas County legislators voted against it except Rep. Connie O'Brien, R-Tonganoxie, who lost her bid for re-election in last year's Republican primary.

In a statement released to news outlets, Gov. Sam Brownback, who signed the bill last year, reaffirmed his support for the law despite the California travel ban, calling religious freedom, "a bedrock American principle and part of the essence of who we are as a people."

The campus religious freedom bill is one of several laws still on the books in Kansas that Equality Kansas wants to repeal this year because it says the measures have since been made null and void by U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Witt said Equality Kansas has also introduced bills to repeal the state's criminal sodomy statute, which makes sexual relations between people of the same sex a crime. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down such laws nearly 14 years ago in a case involving a similar Texas statute.

And the group has proposed bills and a constitutional amendment to repeal statutes and a 2005 constitutional provision that say the state will only recognize marriages between two people of opposite genders, even though the U.S. Supreme Court overturned those laws in 2015.

Witt said that for the LGBT community, repeal of those laws is more than just symbolic.

"They're null and void, but they're still used as justification to discriminate against LGBT communities and they need to go," he said.

"I know people who've been charged with the unconstitutional same-sex sodomy statute," he said. "The charges are, of course, dropped. But there are people who think that since that statute is still on the books, law enforcement should still go ahead and arrest people on it, and it does happen occasionally. It's just legalized discrimination and it shouldn't be happening."


Dustyn Polk 1 year, 3 months ago

I guess the First Amendment will just HAVE to get altered now, since freedom of association is now illegal, apparently.

What a complete joke. I honestly think a white supremacist should sue to join an all black organization. Seems fitting to me, not because I have anything against private groups, but because if it applies to one group, in this case religious groups, then it HAS to apply to all groups.

That's how freedom actually works, or at least how it should work...

You'd think that college kids could grasp such a basic concept.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 1 year, 3 months ago

It would be a good thing for a white supremacist and most black groups would welcome it, so they could get over their stereotyping and bigotry. It would be really good if people started to get to know each other instead of just staying in their own little bubbles. They can do that on social media, but need to not do that in real life.

Port Cullis 1 year, 3 months ago

Imagine if a blonde wanted to enter Miss Black America or you wanted to join 100 Black Men of wherever or you wanted to join Boy Scouts, not because you were confused about your sexuality but because, making it for boys only was discriminating against girls.

Doug Turner 1 year, 3 months ago

I am going to search out gay groups that I know will not like it that I am a Christian straight male and then sue them, try to ruin what all they got going on when they turn me down cause I am not like them, don't share in their faith, don't bend over for them, them bigots.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

I'd like to see you do that, Doug. At least with groups that receive state or federal funding. I'd bet you'd be surprised. Try it. You might find out a lot that you don't know, and it might widen your perspective.

Steve Jacob 1 year, 3 months ago

Does that mean California track teams can't go to Rock Chalk Park? The NCAA is going to have a hard time putting any National Championships in the state if California teams are not allowed to play here.

Bob Smith 1 year, 3 months ago

California is still hissy fitting about leaving the Union. Let 'em go.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

This move by California is exactly what the First Amendment is all about, for those who have forgotten. The threat by the NCAA is the First Amendment in action.

One does not have to be very intelligent to know that both of those bodies are doing nothing but throwing their considerable weight behind the part of the population which thinks it's OK that people should be treated equally, regardless of whatever artificial boundaries might be created by those who feel threatened.

The rest of you can argue about states rights or religious freedom or whatever catchphrase is in vogue at the moment, but treating others as beneath one's dignity does nothing to them and removes any dignity from your actions.

Port Cullis 1 year, 3 months ago

Not quite sure which side you are on here

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

I'm squarely on the side of those who will not tolerate bigotry. California, in this case, will not help Kansas in its intolerance. That is what the First Amendment does: it gives each and every on of us the right to say and act as we wish (within the "shout fire in a theater" stricture). That Kansas chooses to discriminate does not mean that California has to enable that discrimination by taking part in activities in Kansas, a state that does discriminate.

The statement being made by that state is perfectly correct, given the state's stand against discrimination. And I support that strongly. I also do not support Kansas in this regard.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

No, you're squarely on the side of those who share your bigotry. Furthermore, you support discrimination because you clearly state that you support California in their discriminatory travel ban. Had California passed a law that allowed people to opt-out of such trips without consequence, that would have been just fine. However, California chose to not only discriminate against Kansans but also to discriminate against Californians who want to opt-in to those trips. You can twist it all you want to avoid admitting that California is trying to unconstitutionally legislate religion in violation of the first amendment, but the truth is pretty simple.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

Religion? I don't see that at all. The real issue with the California ban is human rights. Twist? Yeah, right, Andrew. And, again, Californians are welcome to make personal trips to Kansas for whatever they wish, but will not receive state money for such trips. That's all it says, Andrew, and your throwing the bigotry claim at me is indeed twisted, when all I am saying is that state-sponsored discrimination should not, and, in California, will not exist nor be fostered by its citizens attending. That's pretty straight, and has nothing to do with discriminating against religions.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

You mean state sponsored discrimination like California passing a law with the sole purpose of discriminating against Kansans and Californians who would have a legitimate reason to travel to Kansas using state funds? The worst part is that it does nothing to protect anybody, in California or elsewhere. That's right. It's not only discrimination but pointless discrimination.

Dontwanna Topher 1 year, 3 months ago

So on one hand we have a person that is an LGBT and on the other hand we have a person that is a believer in the religious idealogy of the faith that he/she is a member of. That faith does not recognize the LGBT community. By requiring the group to allow all including the LGBT person is just as much treating the group beneath their dignity as obviously their thoughts and beliefs are being trampled on. Why is it okay for one person to be trampled on and not the other? A compromise needs to be reached and TOLERANCE (of which there appears to be very little of these days in CA) need to be at the forefront.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 1 year, 3 months ago

Then they shouldn't take any tax dollars or student fees. Let them raise their own money.

Donald Davidson 1 year, 3 months ago

and not only that. should tax payer money or money paid as student fees be allowed to be spent on discrimination? that is the true crux of the matter. I, as a student, should not be required to pay fees that will be used against me, no matter if the organization is religious or secular.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

Here's how I see this, Donald. It is not OK to discriminate in any way, shape or form. If the person who is LGBT wants to join a redneck organization, that's his/her right. Will it happen? Of course not. You're tilting at windmills if you think this is an issue. But, in the case of one who wants to make a statement, however silly it might be, then that person should be allowed to join any organization that receives state or federal funding. The law of the land is that we do not discriminate on sex, gender identification, race, religion, age: you know how it is.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

Here's how he really sees it, Donald. It is not OK to discriminate unless it is in line with his personal view point. Then he wholeheartedly supports it.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

You, Andrew, are purposely avoiding my point, and that's OK. You are welcome to spread your misinterpretation as you wish. Those who actually think will see through it.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

What point did I avoid? Did I avoid the point where you lied about not supporting discrimination in any way, shape or form? Nope, I covered that. Oh, you mean the point where you misrepresent the purpose of the law because your lie supports your position better than truth. You're right, I let you slide on that deception. Of course, you know that the law is a result of intolerant bigots like you and Kevin Elliott who committed fraud in attempts to destroy religious organizations and businesses by falsely claiming a desire to join/do business when the truth is that they intended only to disrupt and create grounds to use the legal system to bankrupt them. Thank you for reminding me to call you out on that dishonesty! While some who are honest in their desire to join will be rejected, the fault falls on the fraudsters who created a need for such protections. You know, the old you reap what you sow parable...

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

And, Andrew, there is a hell of a lot of difference between discriminating and pro-actively not taking part in discrimination. As I said earlier, this is not a religious issue, but one of making it clear to the discriminatory party that one will not enable its discrimination. You don't have to like the other party, or even agree with its mores, but you can keep them from accepting federal funds to foster their whatever you might want to call it, which, in my and Californis'a opinions, come down to discrimination.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

You cannot "proactively not take part in discrimination" by discriminating.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

If you can't understand, don't comment.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

I do understand. The fact that I keep seeing through your BS is why you are getting so frustrated with me.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

Frustrated with you? That's a terrible interpretation of my reaction. I simply don't get very excited about those who ask for my interpretation and then deny that that is what I feel. You're welcome to any opinion you want, Andrew, but don't attempt to call my opinion a lie, ever. If I wanted to lie, I'd say that I appreciate your interpretation of my words.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

Enough with the lies already! I called you out for posting factual untruths. The only opinion I might have called a lie was your opinion that you could redefine terms and twist logic to exclude your preferred bigotry.

I have no problem with you feeling that the Kansas law is wrong. I have no problem with you feeling that the California law is right. My problem is with you posting that you oppose all discrimination and also posting that you support the California law (which does nothing but discriminate). You might 'feel' that you are being truthful, but those are contradictory statements. By definition at least one of them is false. It doesn't even matter which one is false. Either way, you are liar for stating both as fact. It's simple mathematical logic.

Bob Summers 1 year, 3 months ago

Give members of the "community", that think so highly of themselves, participation trophies. Maybe a trophy will help sooth their uncontrolled emotional tizzy they are perpetually in.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

Uncontrolled emotional tizzy=Bob doesn't grasp the concept of fairness or equity and has nothing to say that makes sense.

Marc Soules 1 year, 3 months ago

Does the California law prohibit doing business with countries which similarly "discriminate"? I mean, the middle east has huge market potential for California products. Word is (thanks for that phrase, Harry Reid) the King of Saudi Arabia loves guacamole.

Armen Kurdian 1 year, 3 months ago

Hear hear, selective indignation is a hallmark of the left. The left is writing the book on hypocrisy.

Richard Aronoff 1 year, 3 months ago

Catchphrase in vogue at the moment? Here we have an example of someone who wants to tell us what's in the Constitution despite the fact that he's never actually read it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" See the part about free exercise?

Still, I'd be interested to see how many Jewish LGBTQ people are welcomed into Muslim student groups at the University of California.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

Those of you who base your argument on the idea that something is ok for all if one does it, need to think a moment. At what point does one decide to make a stand, regardless of the fact that many will resist? Do we continue our lives as if there is no common ground among people? do we base our system of thought on the mistaken idea that only one train of thought or ideology can be right, and it's ours? My point is this: until, and unless, all peoples come to the realization that all others are not particularly wrong, that they are different but still want to build a better lives for themselves, nothing will change.

Utopian thought is probably fairly unproductive, but, at the least, it may lead to bettering relations among a larger part of the world. Why don't we try it at the personal level and see what happens?

Clara Westphal 1 year, 3 months ago

I doubt the athletic teams at KU will collapse just because they can't play any California team.

Mike Davis 1 year, 3 months ago

Governor Moonbeam and many is California are just pervert-loving weirdos. They have to be crazy to live on a major fault line just waiting to fall in the ocean.

Port Cullis 1 year, 3 months ago

If I understand this correctly it is about social groups who do not wish to have homosexuals as part of their groups. Some people are not comfortable around homosexuals and to force a small group of people to accept a homosexual can be uncomfortable for all concerned. I remember taking my wife/fiancée out to dinner to propose to her and we were being waited on by a lovely lady and had a lovely meal. I asked about desert and the waitress suggested tiramisu and my girlfriend, at the time, wanted to know more about it to which the waitress said she would get somebody else to help us who knew it better, a flaming gay who was prouncing around the restaurant, and before I could say "no that's OK" she was gone and he was there fawning over us in a way that had me uncomfortable and her laughing. I didn't propose to her at the restaurant but later that night. I do not "gay bash" or do anything to make life harder for homosexuals but for me a romantic heterosexual situation became very uncomfortable and I can understand that other people could become uncomfortable when this type of situation is forced on them.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

"Some people are not comfortable around homosexuals and to force a small group of people to accept a homosexual can be uncomfortable for all concerned."

Nobody is forcing anyone to accept anything. They're just requiring that we not discriminate against the person, not the lifestyle. That's pretty easy. I doubt that homosexuality will rub off on you.

Thomas Bradley 1 year, 3 months ago

A.I.D's is a gift from GAYS and all US have to PAY for it ..Maybe if you gays STOP PUTTING ANIMALS IN BUT ...THERE NO AIDS .

Joseph Jarvis 1 year, 3 months ago

@Thomas Bradley: Your comments that gays caused AIDS and about gay anal sex are great examples of the need for nondiscrimination laws that include LGBT people. You're prejudiced. Educate yourself.

Maddy Griffin 1 year, 3 months ago

If there were a more complete separation of church and state in this country, they would not be at war with each other all the time. Religion and law go together like oil and water. Neither should be infringing on the orders' rights.

Kevin Elliott 1 year, 3 months ago

Yes, once again, the usual suspects spouting the usual crap.

People who do not understand the Constitution crying about the first amendment. Freedom of speech is NOT freedom from criticism NOR is it freedom from consequences. I suggest basic civics classes so you do not continue to look ignorant and uneducated when you misunderstand the Constitution.

People terrified of diversity, or really anything different than they are used to whining like babies, asking that their bigoted point of view be given legislative preference. White Supremacy, Christian Supremacy, Class Supremacy all the same thing.

Bigotry is an act of violence and a mental disease that has only one purpose to make those that are different than the bigot lesser. Lesser in rights, lesser than human, lesser in all aspects of life.

Then they cry and call intolerance when their act of violence is confronted. The reason resistance to bigotry is NOT intolerance is very simple, bigotry has the single purpose of oppressing others and thusly moves from an opinion into and act of oppression, an act of violence .

It will never stop until they die out., They are sad broken soulless people who need to be pitied and need to be told repeatedly that their mental aberration is NOT an acceptable value in a civilized society. Not for them because most of them are lost. But for others listening to the conversation who can still be saved from a life of soulless hate and ignorance.

Bigot Supremacy STOPS being just a point of view when it DEMANDS other human beings be treated less than equal, and thusly, it is NOT intolerance to fight for inclusion, it is a moral imperative to maintain a civilized society.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

You want to talk about diversity? You seek to reshape every person and religion to conform to your world view. There is nothing diverse about clones.

You want to talk about bigotry? California just passed an unconstitutional travel ban because Kansas does not conform to their bigoted, (unconstitutionally) government mandated religious views.

You want to talk about intolerance? Well, you should be well versed in that area because you have made it very clear that you are intolerant of everybody who does not walk in lockstep with you.

In summary, Kevin, you are the one spouting crap. You are a sad, broken, soulless person who wishes to oppress those who disagree with you. You are to be pitied for the ignorance you display, but to be feared for the threat of violence you make.

Kevin Elliott 1 year, 3 months ago

You either failed to read, or failed to comprehend, but either way you failed.

Your "opinion" that humans are lesser than you is NOT an opinion, it is an assault. It will not nor should not be tolerated. It is an act of violence that has one aim, to remove my humanity. You are very dishonest to think I care what you think, I could care less if you live or die. I do care, however that you wish to legislate my inferiority. For that, you fail humanity.

Kevin Elliott 1 year, 3 months ago

there is no difference between you, Lambs of Christ, Isis, the KKK, La Raza, The Black Panthers, You all make the same fatal mistake, that your personal bigotry and hatred should somehow become forced on others,That is where you fail completely and totally. When you confuse your personal fear of diversity with some sort of assumption of superiority. You are not superior.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

I never claimed I was superior. You are the one claiming to be so superior that your beliefs must replace all other beliefs. You are the one with a god complex. I'm the one supporting diversity, in thought and belief.

I'm curious how you think a black owned catering company should react if they were approached to cater a KKK rally and be named on the invite...

Kevin Elliott 1 year, 3 months ago

by supporting legislated bigotry, you are by definition claiming superiority. Bigotry is an act of violence and oppression that creates a lesser class of human being.

What you are doing here is NOT supporting the fact that you ignore science. you are NOT supporting that you have a strong feeling about gender identity. You are instead supporting legislation that gives your bigotry legislative priority. That is where the difference lies and that is where you go from having a difference of opinion, like say on the Affordable Care Act or environmental policy to creating a superior class of people who can oppress another class of people.

That is the moment you left a point of view and became a supremacist.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

So, you claim that I am superior and then attack me for it. How convenient for an intolerant bigot who doesn't have the brains to keep up with me. Preventing the destruction of religion in this country by the likes of you is not bigotry nor oppression. It is actually the opposite, not to mention that it is a constitutionally protected right.

I promote diversity. You promote a world of Kevin Elliott clones. I promote tolerance through disassociation. You promote intolerance with calls for violence and forced association. I promote live and let live. You promote the death of your opponents to achieve victory. It's not hard to see who really has a superiority complex and who can't handle a difference of opinion.

PS: If that was you banging outside my house early this morning, seek professional help. I will call the cops if it happens again. I do not take your threats lightly.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

Nope. Just cautious. He hasn't made an explicit threat, but explicit threats are often nothing more than bluster. It's the implied threat and his public statement that those who disagree with him must die out that is putting me on edge. Telling somebody that you don't care if they die may be a comment you make to people on a regular basis, but to normal people that's a warning.

Kevin Elliott 1 year, 3 months ago

no, Greg is right, you clearly have bigger issues than supporting legislative supremacy.. They can work with you on your fear of diversity AND your paranoid delusions. Good luck.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

It's kind of funny to hear the intolerant bigot who feels it necessary to reshape everybody into their world view claim I'm the one afraid of diversity. Diversity is more than having clones with different skin colors. Diversity is about different people having different thoughts, opinions and beliefs, no matter their skin color. Of course, I understand that you can't handle that because you can't handle people disagreeing with you. You made that pretty clear. You weren't exactly subtle in your superiority complex...

I don't support legislative supremacy. You do. I support diverse thoughts. You seek to eliminate any divergent thought. You keep projecting your god complex on to me and then attacking it. Perhaps it's time you start looking at yourself and changing the things you claim to not like in others.

As for my 'paranoid delusions', I'm just believing what you wrote. You laid out a progression that you said would occur. It went bigotry / intolerance -> oppression -> violence. You have laid out your bigotry and intolerance pretty clearly. You have expressed frustration with a law that has hindered your ability to oppress those with religious beliefs you don't like. By your own words, you are either at or approaching the last step: violence. When you look at that and also see that you posted "It will never stop until they die out." and " I could care less if you live or die.", it's not a stretch to think that you could be preparing yourself to aid in the "die out" process. Perhaps it's not explicit enough that the cops can arrest you, but it's for damned sure enough of an implied threat for me to be cautious.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

Wow, Andrew. Just, wow. There's nowhere to start with you.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

I know you don't care what I think. You made it very clear that you don't care what anybody thinks unless they agree with you. You are just another intolerant bigot.

I'm not the one failing humanity. You are the one calling for the death of those who disagree with you. You are the one promising violence. You are the one that police need to be watching very closely. Do not threaten my life again!

Kevin Elliott 1 year, 3 months ago

No, I have plenty of reasonable discussions with people who disagree with me. I have changed my mind on many things. I had been a big advocate against GMO's but now that i understand the science behind it better and realize that GMO's are NOT adding chemicals or genetic engineering, but just crossing plants the way they have been done for thousands of years, only quicker, I have modified my position. I still think GMO's should be labeled as a matter of honesty, but I no longer worry about consuming them.

I also used to work at a women's reproductive clinic that among many other services, provided abortions. I used to carpool with a childhood friend who would protest outside the clinic as i would work inside. Clearly, we disagreed, but we did not dehumanize each other. That is the point where you fail.

The difference there is that the pro GMO people in my life did NOT want to force me to suffer discrimination, did not want to hold me at gunpoint and shoot me, nor did they advocate for me to loose my family or my job or my home or the right to use a restroom because i did not believe in what they said. Hence, the difference I made about racial, ethnic, religious or orientation supremacists.

Again, that is where the line is drawn. you are advocating a legislative supremacy and that makes you, by definition, no different from the Klan, La Raza, Black Panthers or the Alt Right. You are NOT espousing a point of view, you are advising the superiority of one human over another through legislation, violence and denial of equal rights. That moves your from having a point of view to a human rights violator.

I have no moral qualms about being against violating human rights no matter who much you want to fight for the poor downtrodden racial supremacists or other supremacist. You make yourself invalid in the discussion NOT for having a different opinion, but for promoting dehumanization. I realize you do not like the label of supremacist and you do not appreciate being invalidated, but human equality is not negotiable with me while with you it is your point of existence.

You will be blocked at every turn and you should be. You can feel however you want, but when you try to legislate ME to feel the way you do, you have crossed the line. just like this law, it does NOT require you to change your opinion, you can still be as bigoted tomorrow as you were yesterday, but you want to FORCE others to live according to your bigotry, and that is where i say HELL no.

I will not accept bigot supremacy as the law of the land.

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

"No, I have plenty of reasonable discussions with people who disagree with me." - So, is saying we must die out something new or do you consider such a threat reasonable?

"you are advocating a legislative supremacy and that makes you, by definition, no different from the Klan, La Raza, Black Panthers or the Alt Right." - You forgot to add yourself to the list. You are doing your damnedest to give your viewpoint the power to destroy all opposing viewpoints. That's pretty much the definition of supremacy. Sorry if we don't die out quietly enough for you

"you want to FORCE others to live according to your bigotry" - And yet, you are the bigot who wishes to force my daughter to use the same bathroom, changing room, and shower facilities as a boy as long as he says he feels like a woman on the way in. You may come from places where schools are palaces with individual changing rooms and shower stalls, but I grew up where locker rooms were typically a room with lockers around the edges, benches in front of that, and a clear view of everybody else in the room. Showers were a bunch of shower heads spaced around the perimeter of a single room. While places with individual privacy are not really affected no matter which way the law goes, places with no privacy cannot afford to allow even one sexual predator to access those areas by claiming to be the other gender. Keeping them separated by their plumbing is a much lesser evil.

"human equality is not negotiable with me" - I noticed. You made it pretty clear that people who disagree with you will never be your equal when you said they needed to die out. Your god complex is showing quite clearly.

"when you try to legislate ME to feel the way you do, you have crossed the line" - Once again, you are talking about yourself. You keep trying to pass laws to outlaw divergent thought. The laws I support are the ones that legislate actions. Take the bathroom law for instance. You wish to force me to say that a boy is a girl despite the plumbing saying otherwise. That is you trying to legislate me to feel the way you do. I say I don't care if the boy says he is a girl. That is me not trying to legislate him to feel the way I do. I simply say that he cannot use the girl's facilities because he has the wrong plumbing. That is controlling an action, not a belief. While the rights of the one must be considered, you completely ignore the rights of everybody else in that locker room. Their right to privacy must be respected as well. When you factor in that there is no way to verify a gender identity claim and there are sexual predators out there that would lie about such things to get access to their victims, legislating those actions is the proper course of action. That doesn't even touch on the really thorny issues like a woman filing a sexual harassment charge because another woman displayed an erect penis while they were showering.


Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago


"it does NOT require you to change your opinion, you can still be as bigoted tomorrow as you were yesterday, but you want to FORCE others to live according to your bigotry" - Once again you are getting confused about who is trying to do what. You want to force me to accept men in the women's restroom with my daughter. I do not wish any woman to be forced to accept a man in a women's bathroom, locker room, shower room, etc. Using the facilities designed for your plumbing is not forcing my bigotry on anybody. Are you going to force places that put vending machines in the women's restroom to also put them in the men's for when their period starts and they forgot to bring a pad or tampon? Are you, in the name of equality, going to force facilities with urinals in the men's restroom to also put them in the women's for when a women wants to just fish out her penis and quickly pee? Or do you just wish to force everybody to accept your bigotry and damn the consequences?

"I will not accept bigot supremacy as the law of the land." - Here, let me fix that for you:

Kevin Elliott will not accept anything other than his bigot supremacy as the law of the land.

Kevin Elliott 1 year, 3 months ago

You can keep trying to justify your supremacy as rational and justified, it is not. just as Hitler did, or the Klan Wizards, or the Panthers did, you feel you have justification for being a supremacist, history has shown it is NEVER right, never justified and Never successful.

Diversity will eventually prevail, Justice will eventually prevail. Humanity will eventually prevail. As I said before, i do not expect you to change your mind, I see you as fully broken and in need of help, however, I will not let my pity for your situation suggest that I will EVER let you be supreme over me. I will resist. I understand you will keep trying, and the more you loose, the more desperate you will become. I will resist. I know you will justify and deny and lie and pretend , say or do anything you can to try and make your supremacy acceptable. i will resist.

I feel fortunate that our country was built with a decent level of checks and balances. It is a time in history when supremacists are trying to write laws giving preference to a particular religious point of view, a particular racial preference, a particular gender point of view despite its unacceptability in our rule of law. They tried it before, it was a shameful period in our history that we rose above, we will rise above again. You will fail, again.

That is why your supremacist laws are almost continuously defeated in the courts, they fail the rule of Law. You will always fail

Andrew Applegarth 1 year, 3 months ago

Diversity will prevail. Your belief that all who disagree with you should "be institutionalized in a mental health facility" or "die out" will not. I just hope nobody is injured when you follow through on your threats of violence.

When I saw you write "It is a time in history when supremacists are trying to write laws giving preference to a particular religious point of view, a particular racial preference, a particular gender point of view despite its unacceptability in our rule of law." I thought maybe you had started to see the light but then I realized it's just Kevin being dishonest again.

It's people like you who are trying to write laws to force your point of view on issues, such as homosexuality, into the religious doctrine. I'm trying to protect the religious doctrine from your unconstitutional defacement.

Again, it's people like you trying to write laws with a particular racial preference. When's the last time you saw a quota for hiring white men? How many scholarships have you seen where only whites can apply? When's the last time you saw a college with a 'white student union' despite so many having a 'black student union'? Don't you oppose discrimination? I know, you don't believe reverse discrimination is discrimination because it is in parallel with your point of view. You are all about forcing your bias into the definition of such neutral terms as bigot, discrimination, intolerance, etc.

Likewise, it's people like you who are trying to write laws to give more rights to those of a particular gender or who are attracted to the same gender. More specifically, you are advocating for laws that give those who claim a gender in conflict with their plumbing more rights in the shower than those who's gender identity is not in conflict.

With that, I'm done here. I knew that I could never overcome the god complex that twists your reality and I've exposed your lies often enough that I doubt anybody is going to learn anything new from a continued dialog. Feel free to post another plethora of lies so you can have the last word. I'll let you have it. I know your delusions of supremacy can only take so many hits...

David Holroyd 1 year, 3 months ago

Make certain that anyone from California cannot travel on I 70, 435 , 635 or any other highway in Kansas to go to points elsewhere. If they don't want to come to Kansas,,no big loss. Remember when liquor could not be served on an airline while it flew over Kansas.

And the trains! What about the trains and passengers from California?

Sherry McGowan 1 year, 3 months ago

Maybe the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, and Wichita State University could fashion a global solution together with the Big 12 Conference, the Missouri Valley Conference, and the Southern Conference. The Big 12 could go from a 10-team conference to the 12-team conference it should be. The Southern would go from a 10- team conference to an 8-team conference.

The Citadel, Furman, Mercer, Samford, and Wofford would logically join Iowa State University, the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, the University of Texas at Austin, Texas Christian University, Texas Tech University, and West Virginia University in the Big-12, which would also (happily) cede Baylor to the Southern Conference.

The Southern would consist of the University of Kansas, Kansas State University, Wichita State University, Baylor, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, East Tennessee State University, the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and Western Carolina University. It is true that Baylor is not technically in Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, or North Carolina, but Baylor is a Baptist school.

Virginia Military Institute would go to the Missouri Valley, joining Bradley, Drake, the University of Evansville, Illinois State University, Indiana State University, Loyola University Chicago, Missouri State University, the University of Northern Iowa, and Southern Illinois University.

No hill for a climber.

A possible 17-game non-con schedule:

North Carolina A&T State University

Alcorn State University

Jackson State University

Austin Peay State University

University of North Carolina - Charlotte

University of Tennessee at Knoxville

Mississippi State University

Tennessee State University

Mississippi Valley State University

University of North Carolina - Wilmington

University of Southern Mississippi

Middle Tennessee State University

Tennessee Technological University

North Carolina Central University

University of Tennessee at Martin

University of North Carolina - Asheville

East Carolina University

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 1 year, 3 months ago

Maybe if they are supported by tax dollars, they should quit allowing discrimination.

Jack Rivers 1 year, 3 months ago

First of all, to the person who said he might join a gay organization that might not like it that he is a straight male. Good luck finding one. I don't know of a single one that would exclude you as long as you are respectful. I was in a gay football league in Denver, we had lots of straight members and we welcomed them with open arms. Second of all a lot of you are getting confused about the purpose of the bill. It was, has been, and always will be the right of any student, or anyone else to form a private group that excludes certain people. What the policy was before was that if you were going to accept money from the University you had to be open to all. That seems reasonable to me. If you are going to accept funds that all students have to pay into you shouldn't be excluding some students. If you don't want to do that don't take the money. It's pretty simple but I suspect some of you are screaming "first amendment" to hide your bigotry.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 1 year, 3 months ago

A lot of comments on here are missing the point. If you fund your group yourself and do not receive any taxpayers money, then you have the right to discriminate. Churches have a right to choose who can or cannot be a member. They can even put up a sign that says no LGBT's allowed. They can even refuse to have people of color join. But if the group is getting tax money, they cannot discriminate. Period. So the solution is don't take any tax money for your group.

Clara Westphal 1 year, 3 months ago

So if UCLA or Stanford find themselves opposite KU in the NCAA tournament, will they forfeit the game rather than play a team from Kansas? That would be sweet.

Kyle Neuer 1 year, 3 months ago

Not if the games aren't played IN Kansas, which won't be a problem since no NCAA Tourney games are going to be played in the state.

Greg Cooper 1 year, 3 months ago

Wichita State, I think, is scheduled to have a round.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.