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

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Perhaps...and, I'm just spitballing here... there might be a principle involved?

 

[Ms Tree]

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...

That's not what the law says. It was written poorly (perhaps on purpose since the legislator is from a two bit law school it's hard to tell if it was intentional or not) and allows for codified discrimination.

Replace 'gay' with any other group of your choosing. Does it still not sound like discrimination?

 

[eolesen]

At your suggestion, I inserted "Vegetarians" and "Meat Eaters".

Still sounds entirely reasonable to me.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

My opinion is that if the ACLU is against it, it's probably good legislation.

Except when they support something you support, like a conservative or libertarian cause?

"In a report issued in February, the Texas affiliate of the National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition to spotlight unlawful, unnecessary governmental encroachment on average law-abiding citizens.

The report, Above the Law: How Texas prosecutors are placing their own judgment over that of the Legislature and the law of the land, found that district and county attorneys had instructed police officers to unnecessarily interrogate drivers and arrest them or take their weapons, even if they are legally carrying the gun.

"A statement on the ACLU of Nevada website reads:

"In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision concerning the D.C. handgun ban ( District of Columbia v. Heller), the ACLU of Nevada considers it important to clearly state its position regarding the right to bear arms. The Nevada ACLU respects the individual's right to bear arms subject to constitutionally permissible regulations. The ACLU of Nevada will defend this right as it defends other constitutional rights. This policy was formulated by our affiliate Board in light of both the U.S. Constitution and the clearly-stated individual right to bear arms as set out in the Nevada Constitution's Declaration of Rights."

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/07/21/aclu-defending-gun-rights-but-that-wont-convince-the-wingnuts-nobodys-coming-after-their-guns

That decision prompted the ACLU to come to SBAs defense.

The law cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny, the ACLU brief states. The statute fails for the same reasons that the Sedition Act has been condemned by history. The people have an absolute right to criticize their public officials, the government should not be the arbiter of true or false speech and, in any event, the best answer for bad speech is more speech.

From The Blaze:

"The civil liberties group also argues that the Ohio law is vague and overbroad.

The brief continues:

The entirety of the statute criminalizes what is, in essence, core political speech. The statute prohibits a wide variety of speech, in an equally wide variety of contexts and media. The only criteria to fall within the prohibition: that someone allege the speech is false. It is not the governments place to pass judgment on what political speech is acceptable, and certainly not in the context of criticizing a public official."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2010/10/21/aclu-backs-pro-life-group-in-free-speech-billboard-case/

 

[Ms Tree]

At your suggestion, I inserted "Vegetarians" and "Meat Eaters".Still sounds entirely reasonable to me.

Not surprising that you are OK with discrimination.

Are there any groups you would not be OK discriminating agajnst?

 

[700UW]

W.A.S.Ps. like himself.
 
Maybe we should bring back Jim Crow laws.
 
Take away a woman's right to vote and own property too.
 
Bring back slavery and indentured servitude and outlaw unions.
 
That would make him happy.
 
Heck maybe the US should open concentration camps too.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

How Texas prosecutors are placing their own judgment over that of the Legislature and the law of the land,

Kind of like Obama and Obamacare.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

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.

The same reason gays are pushing for gay marriage. 

 

[KCFlyer]

If it is as described I doubt it will pass the inevitable legal appeals.

You have to understand, this is KANSAS they are talking about here.  They pushed to ban gay marriage, because if we allowed that, then what was to stop people from marrying a horse (actually used in the debate).   

 

[KCFlyer]

Codified religious discrimination.


Wonder why KS would be willing to lose a boat load of cash defending this POS law.

They'll just take the money from the school fund, like they have for every other program that couldn't be funded because of Brownback's tax cuts.

 

[Ms Tree]

You have to understand, this is KANSAS they are talking about here.  They pushed to ban gay marriage, because if we allowed that, then what was to stop people from marrying a horse (actually used in the debate).

There are a few on here who have used that same stupid argument. They ignore the consent laws and make up their own reality. Impossible to have an argument with that level of mentality.

 

[delldude]

Guess you never heard of the straight baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple did you?

 

[KCFlyer]

Guess you never heard of the straight baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple did you?

 
Doesn't speak well for the baker, does it?  Maybe if he's lucky, we can pass some laws to reinstate the "white" and "colored"  water fountains.  After all...back in the day many churches taught that "race mixing" was against the bible.   Are you saying that this baker would have a right to refuse to sell to a black man marrying a white woman?  AFter all....he heard from the pulpit that this was an abomination agin nature.  

 

[Ms Tree]

 
Doesn't speak well for the baker, does it?  Maybe if he's lucky, we can pass some laws to reinstate the "white" and "colored"  water fountains. 

I wonder if these zealots will have the courage to put signs in the window that say "We don't serve Gays".  That would make our journey back to the 60's complete. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

I wonder if these zealots will have the courage to put signs in the window that say "We don't serve Gays".  That would make our journey back to the 60's complete. 

Yes, because from a libtard point of view racism and not accepting perversion are CLEARLY the same thing right?
 
I suppose people that do not support pedophiles are racist to right?
 
Your analogy is flawed at best.
 
 

 
Doesn't speak well for the baker, does it?  Maybe if he's lucky, we can pass some laws to reinstate the "white" and "colored"  water fountains.  After all...back in the day many churches taught that "race mixing" was against the bible.   Are you saying that this baker would have a right to refuse to sell to a black man marrying a white woman?  AFter all....he heard from the pulpit that this was an abomination agin nature.  

 

Yet another example of this flawed analogy.
 
Sounds like libtard logic to me.