Skip to comments.Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
Posted on 02/13/2014 6:31:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Other states need to follow promptly.
I’m sure California or New York will be next.
Wow, protecting personal conscience, what a concept.
Choose to murder an unborn child - Okay
Choose to not perform a service because of personal conscience - Feel the boot heel of the government
How about ‘you can refuse service to anyone for any reason or lack thereof’ laws? Why do they need to be so specific?
aka freedom of association
Applying the civil rights legislation to private individuals was always grossly unconstitutional.
Good!!! I for one am sick and tired of all this Homo stuff.
Since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect so-called gay rights, such “rights” now wrongly being legislated from the bench by activist judges, such a law would be constitutional as long it doesn’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
Love the way they worded that title to make it sound bad. The bill was passed in order to protect businesses rights to practice the faith of the owners.
Good. No one should be forced to do anything in the name of “tolerance,” that is “one way” tolerance.
We have an individual responsibility too—to not attend same-sex weddings, even if it’s a family member. To do so is to express approval.
Would you really want a wedding cake from a bakery you FORCED to make it for you?
That sign has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act passed.
Not only yes, they would prefer it!
I think any honest liberal would agree with the law.
Slate is comparing this to segregation. Sheesh.
Kansas: AKA The Best State in the Union :)
State pride is a good thing. Y'all seem to be learning a lot from us Texans :-)
why not do themselves a favor, a favor that will be harder for the courts to pick as an effort of attempting a single and specific “discrimination”
and broaden the ability to not provide service to ANYONE other than denial of service to a person among the classes of persons designated in the post-civil war amendments -
in other words, broaden the exceptions for which service could be denied legally, to any condition other than “race” (and I’d say race or religion), any condition that does not meet a moral or ethic standard held by the person who would otherwise be supplying the service
for some individuals that might include “same sex” couples, and for someone else it might include folks dressed in “goth” get ups, and for someone else - you get my idea
I sure wouldn’t. And the only reason these people do this sort of thing is to promote their agenda.
My guess is the SCOTUS will overturn that decision and the gays will be celebrating once again. This whole damn country has gone off balance including the SCOTUS.
Yep ... that’s usually how these things play out.
Count on more of this.
I’m sure you’ve seen the pattern, as Rush pointed out from Evan Sayet’s “Regurgitating the Apple”:
The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
If the same set of rules were applied to those that did not believe Jesus is Lord, would you support their being denied entrance into a business or for some of the other conditions set here?
Curious to know people’s feelings on this.
Are you asking if business should be allowed to specify “No Jews, No Hindus, No Muslims”?
If so, I’m actually inclined to say “Yes, they should”.
However, given the fact that people generally need to sleep every day and eat several times a day, I’m not going to be fanatical about enforcing that concept.
Buying a wedding cake (or hiring a photographer), on the other hand, is generally done infrequently and with a long lead-time, and plenty of opportunity to shop around for alternate suppliers if the first one you try doesn’t wish to provide the service you’re looking for.
Using the brute-force of government to mandate someone to participate in an activity they find abhorrent for religious reasons is a clear violation of the “...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Would you support a law requiring all restaurants to maintain a kosher/halal kitchen so that devout Jews or Muslims could eat there?
Businesses should absolutely not be able to refuse service based on religion or skin color or because someone is homosexual. They should be and are allowed to refuse service based on behaviors, but not identities.
Should a baker or a florist or a photographer be free to refuse service to one or more homosexuals engaging in the behavior of pretending to be “getting married”?
I think it is a very tough question from a legal standpoint. Should a Jew be able to deny service at a restaurant to a Christian? Should a Protestant be able to refuse service to a Catholic?
In my opinion, anyone should be able to deny service to anyone.
That said, I can understand the position of those who say anyone in the food/lodging must equally serve all who walk through the door; people, as a general rule, have to sleep every day and eat several times a day.
This does not apply to services such as photography, cakes, flowers, and the like for homosexual pretend-weddings. If one provider doesn’t wish to serve them, there is plenty of time to look for alternatives.
How would you write the law to apply to your rules?
Any business licensed as a restaurant or lodging facility is required to provide their services to all paying customers, subject to capacity constraints.
All others are free to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Is this a federal or state law?
Jurisdiction is irrelevant.
That’s what the law would be “If I were Emperor of the World”.
Good luck on becoming emperor of the world.
I have no expectation of becoming so.
You asked me my opinion of allowable bounds of the “right to refuse service”, I told you.
Thanks for the good news.