Kansas: Legalizing Discrimination

[Iceweasel]

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

A Denver judge speaks for the United States, since when? That case will likely be appealed.

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...

Swing and a miss. That isn't what I said, learn to read.

 

[Howey]

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?

You mean like the 1% asserted themselves over the 99% by convincing the SCOTUS to make them "human"? Yeah...

I'll remind you once again that once all is said and done, the number of gays in this country will reflect 10-20% of the population. Along with 85-90% who currently support the gay equality issues.

That's a hell of a lot of people. We have to speak loudly in response to the screams of you fringe homophobes out there.

 

[Kondor3]

"...We have to speak loudly in response to the screams of you fringe homophobes out there."

Typical arrogant monkey-poo tossing on the part of Gay Rights advocates who will brook no criticism nor opposition; not even the kind that doesn't involve name-calling.

One of the reasons why the 97% will wrest back control of this process.

The dictates of the 3% will prove unsustainable, as more and more people decide to stop playing the part of sheeple, and find the courage to take the brickbats, in support of future changes.

But, DO feel free to continue in your supremely self-confident arrogance.

For reasons which you will neither comprehend nor anticipate nor believe, until the next round of change is upon you.

The future belongs to the 97%, not the 3%.

Believe it.

 

[Iceweasel]

You mean like the 1% asserted themselves over the 99% by convincing the SCOTUS to make them "human"? Yeah...

Which planet are you talking about?

I'll remind you once again that once all is said and done, the number of gays in this country will reflect 10-20% of the population. Along with 85-90% who currently support the gay equality issues.

That's a hell of a lot of people. We have to speak loudly in response to the screams of you fringe homophobes out there.

Realtionships aren't people. People have relationships. You can't discern the different due to your heterophobic hatred and intolerance.

 

[R.D.]

Instead of whining and pretending this is keeping people down rather than allowing people a choice, try being honest. Now those businesses who will will thrive

 

[Defiant1]

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

I believe all public accommodation laws should be done away with.

The vast majority of businesses are private. The government should stay out.

Business should only be conducted when there is a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Neither one should be forced by the government to participate.

These laws if not unconstitutional are at least un-American.

Let the market decide these things.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I understand the laws just fine. They apply to all except religious or private organizations, period.

A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays?

Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration. They object to integration because they believe it will lead to interracial marriage, and they think that “race mixing” violates God’s word. The merchants are hardly alone in their opposition to interracial marriage. At the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, a substantial majority of states banned interracial marriage.[4] As late as 1950, twenty-nine states still banned interracial marriage.[5] In 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down the Virginia ban in the aptly named case of Loving v. Virginia,[6] sixteen states (including Virginia) still prohibited interracial marriage.[7]

Our merchants claim that their religious views should entitle them to an exemption from generally applicable antidiscrimination laws. After Employment Division v. Smith, as we will see, their federal constitutional claim to an exemption would be a loser.[8] We assume for purposes of our hypothetical, that it would be a loser in 1950 also. So our merchants turn to their state legislature.

At first, our merchants wanted a general exemption from serving, selling to, employing, or renting apartments to black people. But their state supreme court has recently struck down the state ban on interracial marriage.[9] Now, our merchants are confronted with something more troubling to their consciences: a married or marrying interracial couple. The issue was simple: they wanted an exemption in the commercial sphere for general, and religiously inspired race discrimination. Is the issue now different because marriage is involved? Must the restaurateur serve an interracial couple, the landlord rent them an apartment on the same terms as whites, and the employer hire a well-qualified spouse of an interracial couple? Must the baker bake a wedding cake or the hotel owner, who regularly rents out space for wedding receptions, rent space for the interracial wedding? Must the florist provide flowers? When one of the employer’s white employees marries an American of African descent, may the employer discharge her for that reason?

For our merchants, interracial marriage is a grave sin, a violation of God’s word. They do not want to be involved in the sin in any way at all. Still, the law applies. The Constitution does not protect their religiously motivated right to discriminate based on race. On principle these merchants oppose all integration, and they would like a blanket exemption. But as a matter of tactics, they decide to limit their claim initially to interracial marriage—they seek an exemption from facilitating interracial marriage. Interracial marriage strikes them as the most unpopular form of integration, so it seems a good place to start their effort to achieve more general exemptions for race discrimination. So they go to the legislature and seek an exemption for religiously and morally motivated discriminators, at least in the case of any connection with interracial marriage. Should they get one?

They seek an exemption only from facilitating racial intermarriage. Facilitating is a slippery term. The baker, the florist, and the hotel owner suggest we start with freeing them from providing goods or locations for the ceremony. The employer wants a broader exemption, one from employing one spouse from an interracial couple, the landlord wants an exemption from renting to them, and the merchant wants an exemption from selling to them. Simply as a matter of public policy, should the legislature grant the exemptions?

No. The important values underlying the need to destroy the racial caste system militate in favor of maintaining the general law and applying it generally. Religious and moral exemptions will undermine the force of the law. They may do more. They may teach merchants that they have a religious right and duty to discriminate. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (generally without exemptions for religious or moral objectors) helped to solidify public rejection of segregation. A law riddled with exemptions for religiously or morally motivated discriminators would, it is reasonable to suppose, have been far less effective. Indeed, it might have dramatically changed the message sent by the law.

At the other end of the spectrum, as a matter of free speech and freedom of association, a segregationist church need not accept black members, the segregationist minister need not marry them, and the church that has spaces for receptions (limited to its own members) need not accommodate the interracial couple.​

 

[Iceweasel]

I understand the laws just fine. ThOur merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration. ey apply to all except religious or private organizations, period.

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:

"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."

LOL.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Where the Westboro BAPTIST Church is...are we surprised?

 

[Katzndogz]

I understand the laws just fine. ThOur merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration. ey apply to all except religious or private organizations, period.

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:

"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."

LOL.

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

 

[Iceweasel]

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

Yep, accuracy was clearly not the author's goal.

 

[rightwinger]

I understand the laws just fine. ThOur merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration. ey apply to all except religious or private organizations, period.

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:

"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."

LOL.

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

They certainly seemed to think so before 1965

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I love this stuff. We should force people to do something with their own time and property because we say so. The hypocrites strike again.

 

[Manchester]

I understand the laws just fine. ThOur merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration. ey apply to all except religious or private organizations, period.

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:

"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."

LOL.

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

Plenty about not eating pig flesh though. I wonder how many of the the people who rally against homosexuality because it is condemned in the bible have never had bacon with their breakfast.

 

[boedicca]

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.

IOW, in order to protect the rights of gays, you wish to destroy the rights of others.

Slavery is Freedom!

Hopenchange!

 

[R.D.]

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:

"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."

LOL.

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

Plenty about not eating pig flesh though. I wonder how many of the the people who rally against homosexuality because it is condemned in the bible have never had bacon with their breakfast.

So what?

 

[Iceweasel]

Plenty about not eating pig flesh though. I wonder how many of the the people who rally against homosexuality because it is condemned in the bible have never had bacon with their breakfast.

So what?

So he doesn't understand the Bible or the issue even remotely.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I understand the laws just fine. ThOur merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration. ey apply to all except religious or private organizations, period.

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:

"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."

LOL.

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

Mmm, maybe. Inter-faith marriage is forbidden. Inter-racial depends what the ethnicities mentioned below were:

1. When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land to which you are coming to possess it, He will cast away many nations from before you: the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and powerful that you.
3. You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son.
- Devarim 7 (Deuteronomy)

 

[Silhouette]

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:

"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."

LOL.

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

Plenty about not eating pig flesh though. I wonder how many of the the people who rally against homosexuality because it is condemned in the bible have never had bacon with their breakfast.

You have to understand venial vs mortal sin. It is a venial sin to disobey the lesser commandments. However, in Jude I and Romans I it is made implicitly clear that anyone who enables the spread of a homosexual settlement or culture will be condemned to hell forever. That's what qualifies as a mortal sin from which there is no recovery.

That's what makes this a 1st Amendment issue. You cannot have a secular law to require a faithful christian to commit a mortal sin. That is one and the same as stripping them of their religious freedom. It is forcing them to choose between destitution [from a lawsuit supported by secular law] or prison vs enternal damnation in the Pit of Fire.

 

[Seawytch]

I understand the laws just fine. ThOur merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration. ey apply to all except religious or private organizations, period.

No you don't. That's why you fell back to a gay propaganda op-ed piece instead of citing the section of law you linked to earlier. His first sentence:



"Our merchants, including the baker and florist, have strong religious views against integration."



LOL.

There is nothing in the Bible about integration nor any prohibition against interracial marriage.

Not according to those that were opposed. Need some quotes do ya?

Connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them should be prohibited by positive law and be subject to no evasion. (Virginia Supreme Court ruling, 1878)

By marrying outside of your race, no matter what that race is, and then having children of mixed race, you destroy God's original design for your race. The offspring of interracial unions are no longer God's intended creation. (SaveYourHeritage.com)

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. (Leon Bazile, Virginia trial court judge, 1965)