Objection Board rejects challenge by gay rights group that sought to remove legislator from ballot

@Gotland: By your logic, anti-miscegenation laws aren't discriminatory because blacks and whites are equally prohibited from marrying outside their race. That line of argument was considered and rejected decades ago in Loving v. Virginia.

June 20, 2012 at 9:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gay marriage a distant dream around the world

@BringBackMark says "if a bull could not perform with the heifers and cows, you didn't go find another bull for him. Instead you ground him up in hamburger and considered that a bad investment."

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to be a gay person reading a neighbor's comment that gay people are worthy of death? Because that's pretty much what you just did. Attitudes like yours are why nondiscrimination laws are needed.

May 21, 2012 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Deciding issue?

LJW writes "Aren’t there far more serious issues facing this country, such as the runaway national debt, unemployment and underemployment, immigration, national security, dangerous trouble spots around the globe and this nation’s economy?"

@LJW: Yes, there are a lot of Serious Issues facing this country. But who is the JW to trivilaize discrimination against a minority population? Imagine a newspaper editorial in the 1960s bemoaning the "fuss" over African Americans' civil rights compared to the other important issues of the time. What some don't understand is that for many minorities, getting equal treatment is a prerequisite to tackling the other issues that the majority take for granted as being the only things on the agenda.

May 18, 2012 at midnight ( permalink | suggest removal )

Legal bigotry

@Gotland: This is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Assume polygamy is bad, insinuate acceptance of same-sex couples slides into that, reader makes logic leap...

April 12, 2012 at 12:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Legal bigotry

@Lateralis: You seem to have an absolutist approach to private property, which I don't think is accurate. Why does government have no right to regulate non-criminal conduct on private property? How do you explain zoning laws? Or the 13th Amendment's regulation of private conduct in the context of race?

April 12, 2012 at 12:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Legal bigotry

@citizen1: I think you overlook the remedial component of nondiscrimination laws. If someone is fired or evicted because of their minority status, that has real economic consequences. That's why human rights boards often have the power to award damages. These laws exist in part to say to people "don't be racist etc.," but they also exist to band-aid situations that crop up.

April 12, 2012 at 12:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

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

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

March 29, 2012 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

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

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

March 29, 2012 at 12:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

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

@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.

March 29, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

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

@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.

March 29, 2012 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )