Kansas Homophobic Bill: DEAD!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Does that mean the people of Kansas now accept homosexuality as normal?

Of course not. Just means that the wheels are turning and lights are starting to go off in peoples heads illuminating the fact that gay people getting married does not turn heterosexual people gay.

Course it doesn't... it just pisses on the Bible and the word of God, and spits in the face of all Christians... that's all.

The devil is at work here folks, he's in your face. You'd do yourself a favor to see it for what it is... evil.

Nonsense.

There is no "evil."

Or if there is evil, it's this law that's thankfully dead, along with the hate it represents.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I’ve been thinking a lot about this quote from Adam Liptak’s New York Times piece on the series of federal court decisions striking down state gay-marriage bans: “It is becoming increasingly clear to judges that if they rule against same-sex marriage their grandchildren will regard them as bigots,” Andrew M. Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern, told Liptak.

Perhaps.

But Federal judges invalidating laws that deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights are motivated primarily by the fact that settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence compels them to do so, that the Constitution is clear that the states may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, including marriage law.

Otherwise, it’s refreshing to see state lawmakers obey the Constitution, and refrain from enacting a measure undoubtedly offensive to the Founding Document.

Is the RFRA constitutional? Yes? Seriously?

Then explain something, how does a state law that does the same thing not meet the standards of constitutionality?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because one set is man/woman, and the other set is not. Marriage has always been predicated on opposite sex couples, regardless of the result of childbirth. Your premise is based on the error that they are the same, and they are not.

The same sex couple is free to appeal to the legislatures to set up their own contract matching marriage, or for the legislature to to modify the marriage contract. If successful more power to them.

Sorry Marty, and appeal to tradition is not a legal basis for denying equal treatment under the law. As a matter of fact the Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same thing in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 - "tradition" is not a compelling reason for continued discrimination.

This is why marriage equality keeps winning in the courts (well actually it's winning in public opinion, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box - put in this case we're talking a coherent legal argument). That's because of an inability to articulate a UNIQUE compelling interest on why SSCM should be banned when compared to like situated different-sex couples. There has been 20 years since the Hawaii case in the early 90's, no valid reasons to day.

But there is no compelling argument to force a State to modify the marriage contract issued by that State via judicial fiat. One does not have the right to force the State to modify a contract that is perfectly fine for its intended purpose, and can easily be replicated via legislative action.

The SCOTUS disagrees, otherwise they wouldn't have found State restrictions on interracial Civil Marriage to be unconstitutional. In that case they forced the States (those that still had it) to end traditional discrimination. The "intended contracts" at that time excluded individuals (well actually couples really) based on race. For those States that still had such discrimination in their State Code and State Constitutions, those laws were struck as unconstitutional under the COTUS.


>>>>

Again, race is not a biological difference short of melanin concentration. Male/Female is a recognized difference by law. Gay people can argue till the cows come home, but it is not the same, and it never will be. Just because the Courts say so does not make them right, or in that case all the progressives whining about Citizen's United are just shit out of luck.

Male/Female is a recognized difference in the law, that doesn't mean that the government can discriminate based on gender - for such discrimination to be valid there needs to be a reason for it.

There has to be a compelling reason TO deny legislatures the ability to perform their constitutional right to pass laws as they see fit, compelling being a strict constitutional ban on what they propose to do.

There is, the function portion is contained in the 14th Amendment that prohibits capricious and invidious discrimination for no compelling reason by the government.

While that is the function government reason, the ideal is embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution. Specifically about establishing justice.

It is not justice to discriminate for no valid reason.

>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Sorry Marty, and appeal to tradition is not a legal basis for denying equal treatment under the law. As a matter of fact the Commonwealth of Virginia tried the same thing in Loving v. Virginia in 1967 - "tradition" is not a compelling reason for continued discrimination.

This is why marriage equality keeps winning in the courts (well actually it's winning in public opinion, in the legislatures, and at the ballot box - put in this case we're talking a coherent legal argument). That's because of an inability to articulate a UNIQUE compelling interest on why SSCM should be banned when compared to like situated different-sex couples. There has been 20 years since the Hawaii case in the early 90's, no valid reasons to day.



The SCOTUS disagrees, otherwise they wouldn't have found State restrictions on interracial Civil Marriage to be unconstitutional. In that case they forced the States (those that still had it) to end traditional discrimination. The "intended contracts" at that time excluded individuals (well actually couples really) based on race. For those States that still had such discrimination in their State Code and State Constitutions, those laws were struck as unconstitutional under the COTUS.


>>>>

Again, race is not a biological difference short of melanin concentration. Male/Female is a recognized difference by law. Gay people can argue till the cows come home, but it is not the same, and it never will be. Just because the Courts say so does not make them right, or in that case all the progressives whining about Citizen's United are just shit out of luck.

Male/Female is a recognized difference in the law, that doesn't mean that the government can discriminate based on gender - for such discrimination to be valid there needs to be a reason for it.

There has to be a compelling reason TO deny legislatures the ability to perform their constitutional right to pass laws as they see fit, compelling being a strict constitutional ban on what they propose to do.

There is, the function portion is contained in the 14th Amendment that prohibits capricious and invidious discrimination for no compelling reason by the government.

While that is the function government reason, the ideal is embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution. Specifically about establishing justice.

It is not justice to discriminate for no valid reason.

>>>>

Why does there have to be a reason? Your assumption is that it is discrimination. It is not. it is the rules of the contract, rules that are not contrary to any constitutional mandate.

The overriding concern should be a branch of government overstepping its bounds, which is what the courts are doing. Just because people want something to happen does not make gutting the separation of powers "OK." Marriage definitions are within the purview of the legislatures at the state level, as long as they do not conflict with strict interpretations of the constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, girls, but please do continue with your anti-breeder legislation!

Kansas anti-gay bill: Republican senators admit it?s discrimination, kill it.

I bet you cannot tell me precisely what problem you had with the proposed law.

I can...or more so this author from Slate can.

Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination


In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

Hell, the Republican Senators in the state can tell you why they didn't vote for the fucking bill.

“however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.

FYI, the article is full of lies. If you read the actual bill (pdf) you will see that all it does is make it perfectly legal for any business not to provide services or facilities for adoptions, counseling, foster care, social services, weddings, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything that is similar in purpose. In other words, it is very specific, and prevents the state from forcing people into slavery.

In other words, you hate it based on things it does not say, not on what it does say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No the government does not HAVE to as it is a different question.




Under this reasoning then the Constitutional bans on interracial marriage passed by the people of Alabama would still be in force since the Constitution does not EXPLICITLY say States can't define Civil Marriage along racial lines.



>>>>

No, it wouldn't because a marriage between a man and a woman is a marriage between a man and a woman, because race does not fundementally change the relationship between the two parties. having same sex people able to marry DOES fundementally change the relationship between the two parties.

If a State wants to redefine the contract to allow same sex couples to use it, I have no issue. What I do not see is a constitutional right to FORCE the states to change the contract.

And prior to 1967...

Marriage (in many States) was between a man and a woman of the same race. Those that opposed marriage equality under the law did view allowing interracial marriages as a fundamental change in the relationship.

And many then opposed the idea that the 14th meant equal treatment by the States, the opposed a constitutional right to FORCE the states to change the contract.



>>>>

Stop lying, prior to 1967 interracial marriage was legal in most states.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course not. Just means that the wheels are turning and lights are starting to go off in peoples heads illuminating the fact that gay people getting married does not turn heterosexual people gay.

Course it doesn't... it just pisses on the Bible and the word of God, and spits in the face of all Christians... that's all.

The devil is at work here folks, he's in your face. You'd do yourself a favor to see it for what it is... evil.

Nonsense.

There is no "evil."

Or if there is evil, it's this law that's thankfully dead, along with the hate it represents.

If there is no evil, there is no good, and there is no reason to have government at all.

 

[Asclepias]

Then why doesn't the same sex marriage movement include their poly-amorous brethren in the discussion? Because they know it would lose them their margin of support.

and the marriage contract does not apply to them, unless modified by the legislatures in question. there is no constitutional mandate to force states to do it by judicial fiat.

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue agains gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

The state cannot violate the 14th amendment. Give it a rest.

 

[Asclepias]

And I keep saying, its not equal because they two types of couples are NOT equal.

Doesnt matter what you say. The 14th amendment disagrees.

It actually doesn't, your side has just been able to find judges who shit on the constitution when they see fit.

The 14th amendment is the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Doesnt matter what you say. The 14th amendment disagrees.

It actually doesn't, your side has just been able to find judges who shit on the constitution when they see fit.

The 14th amendment is the constitution.

But it doesn't mean what you think it means, or at least wish it meant.

 

[martybegan]

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue agains gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

The state cannot violate the 14th amendment. Give it a rest.

You just keep harping 14th amendment without really saying anything about it.

 

[Seawytch]

I bet you cannot tell me precisely what problem you had with the proposed law.

I can...or more so this author from Slate can.

Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination


In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

Hell, the Republican Senators in the state can tell you why they didn't vote for the fucking bill.

“however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.

FYI, the article is full of lies. If you read the actual bill (pdf) you will see that all it does is make it perfectly legal for any business not to provide services or facilities for adoptions, counseling, foster care, social services, weddings, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything that is similar in purpose. In other words, it is very specific, and prevents the state from forcing people into slavery.

In other words, you hate it based on things it does not say, not on what it does say.

If you read the PDF you linked to, you would know that it does exactly as the linked article stated it does. Page 2 starting at line 6.

 

[Seawytch]

It actually doesn't, your side has just been able to find judges who shit on the constitution when they see fit.

The 14th amendment is the constitution.

But it doesn't mean what you think it means, or at least wish it meant.

Federal judges disagree.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does polygamy and gay marriage have to do with each other? You cant argue agains gay marriage using polygamy as the basis of your argument. Gay marriage is between 2 consenting adults. The marriage contract does apply to them. The 14th amendment is the constitutional mandate.

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

The state cannot violate the 14th amendment. Give it a rest.

That's a relief, it means that no cops will ever beat a "person of color" to death again.

Wait...

 

[Asclepias]

It actually doesn't, your side has just been able to find judges who shit on the constitution when they see fit.

The 14th amendment is the constitution.

But it doesn't mean what you think it means, or at least wish it meant.

Who told you that?

 

[Asclepias]

No, it doesn't unless modified by the legislature, where the power resides, not with the courts. There is no Right to same sex marriage, it is something that can be allowed by legislatures.

The state cannot violate the 14th amendment. Give it a rest.

You just keep harping 14th amendment without really saying anything about it.

Its not me saying it. The 14th amendment says a lot. I posted the relevant passage a couple of pages back.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can...or more so this author from Slate can.

Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination


In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

Hell, the Republican Senators in the state can tell you why they didn't vote for the fucking bill.

“however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.

FYI, the article is full of lies. If you read the actual bill (pdf) you will see that all it does is make it perfectly legal for any business not to provide services or facilities for adoptions, counseling, foster care, social services, weddings, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything that is similar in purpose. In other words, it is very specific, and prevents the state from forcing people into slavery.

In other words, you hate it based on things it does not say, not on what it does say.

If you read the PDF you linked to, you would know that it does exactly as the linked article stated it does. Page 2 starting at line 6.

The part where it says that a business is required to find someone else to provide the services requested?

Dayam, that makes you wrong, again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

FYI, the article is full of lies. If you read the actual bill (pdf) you will see that all it does is make it perfectly legal for any business not to provide services or facilities for adoptions, counseling, foster care, social services, weddings, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything that is similar in purpose. In other words, it is very specific, and prevents the state from forcing people into slavery.

In other words, you hate it based on things it does not say, not on what it does say.

If you read the PDF you linked to, you would know that it does exactly as the linked article stated it does. Page 2 starting at line 6.

The part where it says that a business is required to find someone else to provide the services requested?

Dayam, that makes you wrong, again.

They are required to provide the services requested, unless providing would cause an "undue hardship" but not to the customer, but an undue hardship to the employer.

(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-
religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service
that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the
individual's employer, in directing the performance of such service,
shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or
shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be
done without undue hardship to the employer.​

>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you read the PDF you linked to, you would know that it does exactly as the linked article stated it does. Page 2 starting at line 6.

The part where it says that a business is required to find someone else to provide the services requested?

Dayam, that makes you wrong, again.

They are required to provide the services requested, unless providing would cause an "undue hardship" but not to the customer, but an undue hardship to the employer.

(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-
religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service
that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the
individual's employer, in directing the performance of such service,
shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or
shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be
done without undue hardship to the employer.​

>>>>

And?

Did you read the crap the she posted from Slate? GO read it, then come back and explain to me why what you posted in any way changes my assessment of that piece as an outright lie.

 

[Seawytch]

FYI, the article is full of lies. If you read the actual bill (pdf) you will see that all it does is make it perfectly legal for any business not to provide services or facilities for adoptions, counseling, foster care, social services, weddings, civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything that is similar in purpose. In other words, it is very specific, and prevents the state from forcing people into slavery.

In other words, you hate it based on things it does not say, not on what it does say.

If you read the PDF you linked to, you would know that it does exactly as the linked article stated it does. Page 2 starting at line 6.

The part where it says that a business is required to find someone else to provide the services requested?

Dayam, that makes you wrong, again.

And if that one I individual is the only one that can provide that service...like, oh say, a doctor or pharmacist? Maybe the one business property assessor employed by the city or county? The one building inspector, the only septic service?

Who defines undue hardship?

If this law applied to any group but gays, any minority at all, would you still be okay with it?

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk