Kansas: Legalizing Discrimination

[Seawytch]

Kansas is home to the Westboro baptist church. This move should surprise no one.

 

[Stephanie]

Kansas is home to the Westboro baptist church. This move should surprise no one.

are all you homosexuals such vicious people...
are you ever not angry about everything?
do you plan to invade everyone (the hets)life in the country with your constant victim hood?
from what I seen of you on this board, just horrible people

 

[Seawytch]

Kansas is home to the Westboro baptist church. This move should surprise no one.

are all you homosexuals such vicious people...
are you ever not angry about everything?
do you plan to invade everyone (the hets)life in the country with your constant victim hood?
from what I seen of you on this board, just horrible people

The truth is sometimes vicious Steph. Kansas is where Fred Phelps feels most at home.

 

[Stephanie]

Kansas is home to the Westboro baptist church. This move should surprise no one.

are all you homosexuals such vicious people...
are you ever not angry about everything?
do you plan to invade everyone (the hets)life in the country with your constant victim hood?
from what I seen of you on this board, just horrible people

The truth is sometimes vicious Steph. Kansas is where Fred Phelps feels most at home.

so that justifies putting down ALL the state and the people in it?

 

[Kondor3]

Kansas is home to the Westboro baptist church. This move should surprise no one.

Illinois is home to the ultra-corrupt Democratic Machine of Chicago and Cook County, with its claw-hands wrapped around the throats of the State Legislature in Springfield.

The Illinois State Legislature passing a Gay Marriage Act should surprise no one.

Both your own example and mine are eligible to have rocks thrown at them as Total Disconnects.

 

[rightwinger]

Kansas has become so incredibly backward and ignorant.

Its a little old now but read, What's the Matter With Kansas.

Scary that so many in the US are so against equal rights. Damn traitors need to go live with their hero, Putin.

Kansas has already banned gay marriage

So now they feel they need a law saying you can't be forced to provide services to gay marriages in the State of Kansas

Do Republicans have nothing better to do?

 

[Iceweasel]

Kansas is home to the Westboro baptist church. This move should surprise no one.

Which is supposed to mean what? They run the state? Freedom works both ways, or it should.

I saw this coming years ago. A woman in Seattle had a wedding card type of business and when Canada legalized same sex unions one of them contacted her for cards. She said it was against her faith and turned them down. Unfortunately, Seattle had passed a "no discrimination" law and I heard them call in to the local talk show about how they were ganging up on her to put her out of business with a fine for each occurance.

If that's OK with you, you are far worse that those you rail against. This kind of thing will backfire and this Kansas law is just the tip of the iceburg. Blaming it on a hand full of nuts shows how disconnected from reality you are.

 

[Kondor3]

Kansas has become so incredibly backward and ignorant.

Its a little old now but read, What's the Matter With Kansas.

Scary that so many in the US are so against equal rights. Damn traitors need to go live with their hero, Putin.

Kansas has already banned gay marriage

So now they feel they need a law saying you can't be forced to provide services to gay marriages in the State of Kansas

Do Republicans have nothing better to do?

Nope.

Setting the stage for further setbacks and reversals against the temporarily victorious Gay Rights Lobby takes time.

Reasserting the 97% over the 3% seems important enough for them to make time for such.

 

[rightwinger]

Kansas has become so incredibly backward and ignorant.

Its a little old now but read, What's the Matter With Kansas.

Scary that so many in the US are so against equal rights. Damn traitors need to go live with their hero, Putin.

Kansas has already banned gay marriage

So now they feel they need a law saying you can't be forced to provide services to gay marriages in the State of Kansas

Do Republicans have nothing better to do?

Nope.

Setting the stage for further setbacks and reversals against the temporarily victorious Gay Rights Lobby takes time.

Reasserting the 97% over the 3% seems important enough for them to make time for such.

Why does the 97% have to assert themselves over the 3%?

 

[Seawytch]

Kansas is home to the Westboro baptist church. This move should surprise no one.

Which is supposed to mean what? They run the state? Freedom works both ways, or it should.

I saw this coming years ago. A woman in Seattle had a wedding card type of business and when Canada legalized same sex unions one of them contacted her for cards. She said it was against her faith and turned them down. Unfortunately, Seattle had passed a "no discrimination" law and I heard them call in to the local talk show about how they were ganging up on her to put her out of business with a fine for each occurance.

If that's OK with you, you are far worse that those you rail against. This kind of thing will backfire and this Kansas law is just the tip of the iceburg. Blaming it on a hand full of nuts shows how disconnected from reality you are.

They're called Public Accommodation laws and they've been around for decades. Nobody talked about getting rid of them again until recently...when they started to apply to "the gheys" as well.

You want to abolish all Public Accommodation laws, go right ahead, but not just for "the gheys".

Civil Rights in Public Accommodations and Facilities: Law and History

The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Title II - Public Accommodation

 

[Seawytch]

are all you homosexuals such vicious people...
are you ever not angry about everything?
do you plan to invade everyone (the hets)life in the country with your constant victim hood?
from what I seen of you on this board, just horrible people

The truth is sometimes vicious Steph. Kansas is where Fred Phelps feels most at home.

so that justifies putting down ALL the state and the people in it?

Is Kansas, home to Fred Phelps, passing this anti-gay law? Why yes they are.

 

[Stephanie]

you know what, you people are "creating" more people to HATE YOU so keep this up day in and day shoving this in peoples face

no skin off anyone's ass but your own

 

[Seawytch]

Ironically, if I were a gay business owner in Kansas and this law passed, I'd have to serve Fred Phelps...but he wouldn't have to serve me. Yeah, gays...they're the haters.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

This is why we need national laws preventing discrimination. The State of Kansas will eventually lose this battle. Gays are going nowhere, in fact, the number of open gays will be increasing significantly over the next decade as more and more acceptance of their pursuit of equality becomes more widely accepted.

The Kansas House has approved a bill aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings. The House's 72-49 vote Wednesday sends HB 2453 to the Senate.

Supporters describe it as a religious freedom measure. Opponents contend it will encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill would bar government sanctions when individuals, groups and businesses cite religious beliefs in refusing to recognize a marriage or civil union, or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to a couple.

Other states (Washington et al.) have these sorts of exemptions on the books already. I don't have a problem with it if it means we get those basic rights to begin with.

RCW 26.04.010
RCW 26.04.010: Marriage contract ? Void marriages ? Construction of gender specific terms ? Recognition of solemnization of marriage not required.
(3) Where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law must be construed to be gender neutral and applicable to spouses of the same sex.

(4) No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to solemnize or recognize any marriage. A regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage under this section. No state agency or local government may base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any religious organization on the refusal of a person associated with such religious organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this section.

(5) No religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

(6) A religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action, including a claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW, based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

 

[Iceweasel]

They're called Public Accommodation laws and they've been around for decades. Nobody talked about getting rid of them again until recently...when they started to apply to "the gheys" as well.

You want to abolish all Public Accommodation laws, go right ahead, but not just for "the gheys".

No, Seattle was unique in this area, that's why they chose her. In another city it couldn't have happened. Rather than being intellectually dishonest, post the portion of the specific law that makes it illegal for a baker to refuse to make a gay wedding cake that didn't even have legal same sex marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

They're called Public Accommodation laws and they've been around for decades. Nobody talked about getting rid of them again until recently...when they started to apply to "the gheys" as well.

You want to abolish all Public Accommodation laws, go right ahead, but not just for "the gheys".

No, Seattle was unique in this area, that's why they chose her. In another city it couldn't have happened. Rather than being intellectually dishonest, post the portion of the specific law that makes it illegal for a baker to refuse to make a gay wedding cake that didn't even have legal same sex marriage.

No, they're not "unique".

13 states and the District of Columbia have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations, interpreted to include access to healthcare facilities:

California
Colorado
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maine
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington

An additional 8 states have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations, interpreted to include access to healthcare facilities:

Connecticut
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
Nevada
New Hampshire
New York
Wisconsin

So, in those states you can't discriminate against me in Public Accommodation...just like I can't against YOU in all fucking 50.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

They're called Public Accommodation laws and they've been around for decades. Nobody talked about getting rid of them again until recently...when they started to apply to "the gheys" as well.

You want to abolish all Public Accommodation laws, go right ahead, but not just for "the gheys".

No, Seattle was unique in this area, that's why they chose her. In another city it couldn't have happened. Rather than being intellectually dishonest, post the portion of the specific law that makes it illegal for a baker to refuse to make a gay wedding cake that didn't even have legal same sex marriage.

Judge Rules Baker Must Provide Wedding Services to Gay Couples Despite Religious Convictions | TheBlaze.com

Judge Rules Colorado Bakery Discriminated Against Gay Couple - WSJ.com
"Wedding professionals in at least six states have run headlong into state antidiscrimination laws after refusing for religious reasons to bake cakes, arrange flowers or perform other services for same-sex couples.

The issue gained attention in August, when the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that an Albuquerque photography business violated state antidiscrimination laws after its owners declined to snap photos of a lesbian couple's commitment ceremony."


Swing! And a miss! re: other states it couldn't happen...

 

[Kondor3]

Kansas has already banned gay marriage

So now they feel they need a law saying you can't be forced to provide services to gay marriages in the State of Kansas

Do Republicans have nothing better to do?

Nope.

Setting the stage for further setbacks and reversals against the temporarily victorious Gay Rights Lobby takes time.

Reasserting the 97% over the 3% seems important enough for them to make time for such.

Why does the 97% have to assert themselves over the 3%?

Because of the arrogant manner in which the 3% have asserted themselves over the 97% in recent years?

 

[Iceweasel]

No, they're not "unique".

13 states and the District of Columbia have laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations, interpreted to include access to healthcare facilities:

So, in those states you can't discriminate against me in Public Accommodation...just like I can't against YOU in all fucking 50.

You don't understand those laws, which is what I figured. You can not be denied a seat on a bus or at a restaurant but you are taking it much farther. Yes I know the homosexuals are filing suit but as the thread indicates, there is a backlash going on and I predict it will continue.

 

[Howey]

This is why we need national laws preventing discrimination. The State of Kansas will eventually lose this battle. Gays are going nowhere, in fact, the number of open gays will be increasing significantly over the next decade as more and more acceptance of their pursuit of equality becomes more widely accepted.

The Kansas House has approved a bill aimed at keeping individuals, groups and businesses from being compelled to help with same-sex weddings. The House's 72-49 vote Wednesday sends HB 2453 to the Senate.

Supporters describe it as a religious freedom measure. Opponents contend it will encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The bill would bar government sanctions when individuals, groups and businesses cite religious beliefs in refusing to recognize a marriage or civil union, or to provide goods, services, accommodations or employment benefits to a couple.

Other states (Washington et al.) have these sorts of exemptions on the books already. I don't have a problem with it if it means we get those basic rights to begin with.

RCW 26.04.010
RCW 26.04.010: Marriage contract ? Void marriages ? Construction of gender specific terms ? Recognition of solemnization of marriage not required.
(3) Where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender specific terms such as husband and wife used in any statute, rule, or other law must be construed to be gender neutral and applicable to spouses of the same sex.

(4) No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization is required to solemnize or recognize any marriage. A regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action based on a refusal to solemnize or recognize any marriage under this section. No state agency or local government may base a decision to penalize, withhold benefits from, or refuse to contract with any religious organization on the refusal of a person associated with such religious organization to solemnize or recognize a marriage under this section.

(5) No religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

(6) A religious organization shall be immune from any civil claim or cause of action, including a claim pursuant to chapter 49.60 RCW, based on its refusal to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.

I have no problem with clergy refusing to perform gay marriages, or any other marriage. Like businesses, there's a hell of a lot of disposable cash in the gay community they're losing out on.

Pretty soon they'll be losing their tax exempt status so they're going to be missing the homo money.

Oh well.

Businesses are different. With the evergrowing federal recognition of gays and gay marriage we'll be seeing more and more of them facing the well-deserved ire of the government.

Want that tax break? Sorry.

Want that exemption? Sorry.

Want any federal funds? Sorry.