What's new
By:

Kansas lawmaker introduces, and state house passes, a new law making it legal to discriminate agains

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it is as described I doubt it will pass the inevitable legal appeals.
 
Weren't you the one criticizing the use of the word "libtard" a few moments ago? And now you're calling a someone else a douchebag?...


This type of legislation is something the gay activists and Army of Alphabet Acronym Associations brought upon themselves.

Infringing one person's rights to exercise their faith in the name of non-discrimination is a fairly serious conflict of Constitutional law, especially in light of the recent decisions in Washington and New Mexico.

Sole proprietorships are a much different style business than a corporation. If you start suing them into submission, they're being denied their right to self-determination to earn a living, and at some point, the right to earn an honest living should come above someone else's right to buy a cake or hire a wedding photographer. There's no shortage of places providing the type of services being targeted who are willing to serve all walks of life.

Forcing Christian sole proprietorship businesses to provide services which go against their beliefs is one step removed from forcing Jewish bakers and restaurants to serve pork and shellfish, or forcing a Muslim photographer to photograph a bris or Bar Mitzhah.
 
What happened to "live and let live?" Seems like that and a combo of the right to refuse service to anyone *and* consumers voting with their wallets is a much better ideal than this type of legislation...
 
eolesen said:
Weren't you the one criticizing the use of the word "libtard" a few moments ago? And now you're calling a someone else a douchebag?...


This type of legislation is something the gay activists and Army of Alphabet Acronym Associations brought upon themselves.

Infringing one person's rights to exercise their faith in the name of non-discrimination is a fairly serious conflict of Constitutional law, especially in light of the recent decisions in Washington and New Mexico.

Sole proprietorships are a much different style business than a corporation. If you start suing them into submission, they're being denied their right to self-determination to earn a living, and at some point, the right to earn an honest living should come above someone else's right to buy a cake or hire a wedding photographer. There's no shortage of places providing the type of services being targeted who are willing to serve all walks of life.

Forcing Christian sole proprietorship businesses to provide services which go against their beliefs is one step removed from forcing Jewish bakers and restaurants to serve pork and shellfish, or forcing a Muslim photographer to photograph a bris or Bar Mitzhah.
Click to expand...
My god, that argument fails on so many different levels.
 
No one is telling any body what they must serve only who they must serve.  Very different arguments.  The argument you are using now is what was used by the white majority in the 50's and 60's.  If you are a public business you are not allowed to discriminate.  Period.  You may serve what ever you wish.
 
Would you be in favor of a law allowing companies to discriminate against another segment of society?  What if enough companies did this to the point where service was completely denied to those people?  
 
The deli is at no risk of being force to serve any foods it does not want to as there is no law that does that anywhere.  
 
I read the bill.  It's truly a piece of work.  How it could be any more blatantly prejudice is beyond me.  Hopefully it will fail the judicial review.  The US House blocked the equal protections act for sexual orientation.  Kansas is ass back wards.  Hatred at it's finest. 
 
eolesen said:
Weren't you the one criticizing the use of the word "libtard" a few moments ago? And now you're calling a someone else a douchebag?...
 
Click to expand...
 
Out of respect I try not to call anyone on this board a d-bag, and I didn't. I think that's a fair distinction.
 
 
eolesen said:
Forcing Christian sole proprietorship businesses to provide services which go against their beliefs is one step removed from forcing Jewish bakers and restaurants to serve pork and shellfish, or forcing a Muslim photographer to photograph a bris or Bar Mitzhah.
Click to expand...
 
And if this were limited to sole Christian proprietorships, you might have a point. But did you read the article?
 
a refresher...


Think about what Macheers' bill would do if it gets signed into law.
Businesses could tell gay couples to get lost if an employee or owner believes homosexuality to be a religious sin. Government employees could also refuse service to gay couples. Employers could deny benefits to gay couples or get rid of the employees altogether without recrimination. And if a person so discriminated against filed a lawsuit against the discriminating entity and then lost the case, that person could get stuck not only with their own attorney's bill but also with that of the person or company sued.
Click to expand...
 
It's not an article. It's a blog, written presumably by a gay activist from the extreme examples they're jumping to.

Did you read the legislation? If it said that an employer could fire gays or state workers could refuse to provide service to anyone they didn't like, then you'd have a point.

If someone's going to sue over discrimination, make it worthwhile. Being denied a cake or photography services seems more than just a bit petty, if not opportunistic.

You certainly don't sue someone over services which cost less than filing the lawsuit did. Unless, of course, you're trying to push an agenda, which is what those two cases from NM and WA were about. It wasn't about hurt feelings. It was about forcing acceptance, and abusing the notion of "public convenience" in the process.
 
eolesen said:
It's not an article. It's a blog, written presumably by a gay activist from the extreme examples they're jumping to.

Did you read the legislation? If it said that an employer could fire gays or state workers could refuse to provide service to anyone they didn't like, then you'd have a point.

If someone's going to sue over discrimination, make it worthwhile. Being denied a cake or photography services seems more than just a bit petty, if not opportunistic.

You certainly don't sue someone over services which cost less than filing the lawsuit did. Unless, of course, you're trying to push an agenda, which is what those two cases from NM and WA were about. It wasn't about hurt feelings. It was about forcing acceptance, and abusing the notion of "public convenience" in the process.
Click to expand...
 
How about siting at a counter in a dinner?
 
 
What dollar value do you place on freedom and equality?
 
eolesen said:
It's not an article. It's a blog, written presumably by a gay activist from the extreme examples they're jumping to.

Did you read the legislation? If it said that an employer could fire gays or state workers could refuse to provide service to anyone they didn't like, then you'd have a point.

If someone's going to sue over discrimination, make it worthwhile. Being denied a cake or photography services seems more than just a bit petty, if not opportunistic.

You certainly don't sue someone over services which cost less than filing the lawsuit did. Unless, of course, you're trying to push an agenda, which is what those two cases from NM and WA were about. It wasn't about hurt feelings. It was about forcing acceptance, and abusing the notion of "public convenience" in the process.
Click to expand...
Why read it when it fits the narrative?
But for those that do:
Original:
HOUSE BILL No. 2453
Amended
http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf
 

HB 2453
 
 
It's  whole 3 pages.
B) xUT
 
AdAstraPerAspera said:
Meet the douchebag second-rate politician behind this bill, courtesy of the Kansas City Pitch newspaper...
 
http://www.pitch.com/FastPitch/archives/2014/02/13/meet-charles-macheers-the-man-behind-the-pro-discrimination-bill-in-kansas
Click to expand...
  
HB 2453[SIZE=12pt], AN ACT concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage, was considered on final action.[/SIZE]
 
    On roll call, the vote was: Yeas 72; Nays 49; Present but not voting: 0; Absent or not voting: 3.
 
    Yeas: Anthimides, Boldra, Bradford, Brunk, Couture-Lovelady, Campbell, Carlson, Carpenter, Cassidy, Christmann, Claeys, Corbet, Crum, E. Davis, DeGraaf, Dove, Edmonds, Edwards, Esau, Estes, Ewy, Garber, Goico, Gonzalez, Grosserode, Hawkins, Hedke, Henry, Hibbard, Highland, Hildabrand, Hoffman, Houser, Howell, Huebert, Hutton, Jones, Kahrs, Kelley, Kelly, Kiegerl, Kinzer, Kleeb, Lunn, Macheers, Mast, McPherson, Meier, Meigs, Merrick, Moxley, O'Brien, Osterman, Pauls, Peck, Petty, Powell, Proehl, Read, Rhoades, Rothlisberg, Rubin, Ryckman Jr., Ryckman Sr., Schroeder, Schwab, Schwartz, Seiwert, Suellentrop, Sutton, Thompson, Vickrey.
 
    Nays: Alcala, Alford, Ballard, Barker, Becker, Bollier, Bridges, Burroughs, Carlin, Carmichael, Clayton, Concannon, P. Davis, Dierks, Doll, Finch, Finney, Frownfelter, Gandhi, Henderson, Hill, Hineman, Houston, Jennings, Johnson, Kuether, Lane, Lusk, Lusker, Menghini, Perry, Phillips, Rooker, Ruiz, Sawyer, Sloan, Sloop, Swanson, Tietze, Todd, Trimmer, Victors, Ward, Waymaster, Weigel, Whipple, Wilson, Winn, Wolfe Moore.
 
    Present but not voting: None.
    Absent or not voting: Bruchman, Peterson, Thimesch.
 
[SIZE=12pt]   The bill passed, as amended.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
 
Why the 'witch hunt'?
B) xUT
 
Codified religious discrimination.


Wonder why KS would be willing to lose a boat load of cash defending this POS law.
 
My opinion is that if the ACLU is against it, it's probably good legislation.

I wouldn't count it out as dead just yet. While the Army of Alphabet Acronym Associations are out in full force, most of the uproar is coming from out-of-state people with no standing. It wouldn't surprise me to see the lawmakers further refine the definitions, and take action down the line.

The link xUT provided wasn't working, but this one seems to be.

http://openstates.org/ks/bills/2013-2014/HB2453/documents/KSD00010630/

Lots of the hand-wringing appearing in the blogs doesn't seem to hold up once you read the actual language of the bill.

Certainly, the ability to take action against firing gay employees isn't anywhere to be found, since it is only related to services involved with marriages. Sure, a county clerk could refuse to issue a license, but they're obligated to find someone else to fulfill the request (much like the laws allowing a medical practitioner to refuse to perform procedures or dispense medications which violate their own principles).

It seems to be a fair compromise -- atheists won't be forced to photograph traditional weddings, and traditionalists won't have to photograph civil unions or same-sex ceremonies. And as Kev already alluded to, there are people willing to do both types of services. Forcing someone to provide a service just increases the potential to get sub-par service.
Personally, if I knew the person wasn't comfortable serving my function, I'd be a bit more concerned about a few snot-rockets being introduced into the baking of a forced wedding cake, or an unexplained camera malfunction at a forced photography shoot...
 
eolesen said:
You certainly don't sue someone over services which cost less than filing the lawsuit did. Unless, of course, you're trying to push an agenda, which is what those two cases from NM and WA were about. It wasn't about hurt feelings. It was about forcing acceptance, and abusing the notion of "public convenience" in the process.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
January 11 Airline News
Replies
4
Views
2K
cubfan02us
C

Latest posts

Back
Top