Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
CNN ^ | February 13, 2014 | Ben Brumfield and Dana Ford

Posted on 02/13/2014 6:31:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: florists; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; kansas; lavendermafia; samesexmarriage; weddings

1 posted on 02/13/2014 6:31:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Other states need to follow promptly.


2 posted on 02/13/2014 6:37:38 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

I’m sure California or New York will be next.


3 posted on 02/13/2014 6:42:40 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Wow, protecting personal conscience, what a concept.

Let’s see.
Choose to murder an unborn child - Okay
Choose to not perform a service because of personal conscience - Feel the boot heel of the government


4 posted on 02/13/2014 6:43:11 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

How about ‘you can refuse service to anyone for any reason or lack thereof’ laws? Why do they need to be so specific?


5 posted on 02/13/2014 6:43:37 PM PST by posterchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

aka freedom of association

Applying the civil rights legislation to private individuals was always grossly unconstitutional.


6 posted on 02/13/2014 6:43:50 PM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good!!! I for one am sick and tired of all this Homo stuff.


7 posted on 02/13/2014 6:49:07 PM PST by JamesA (You don't have to be big to stand tall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; All

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.


8 posted on 02/13/2014 6:56:42 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


9 posted on 02/13/2014 6:58:40 PM PST by al_c (Obama's standing in the world has fallen so much that Kenya now claims he was born in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

10 posted on 02/13/2014 7:04:31 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin (I don't have 'Hobbies.' I'm developing a robust Post-Apocalyptic skill set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Good. No one should be forced to do anything in the name of “tolerance,” that is “one way” tolerance.


12 posted on 02/13/2014 7:07:29 PM PST by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


13 posted on 02/13/2014 7:08:48 PM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: al_c

Would you really want a wedding cake from a bakery you FORCED to make it for you?


14 posted on 02/13/2014 7:11:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

That sign has been illegal since the Civil Rights Act passed.


15 posted on 02/13/2014 7:12:39 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
If you were a gay activist - yes!

Not only yes, they would prefer it!

16 posted on 02/13/2014 7:27:12 PM PST by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I think any honest liberal would agree with the law.


17 posted on 02/13/2014 7:29:05 PM PST by Paradox (Unexpected things coming for the next few years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
The battle rages on.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

18 posted on 02/13/2014 7:32:14 PM PST by expatguy (Donate to "An American Expat in SE Asia")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Slate is comparing this to segregation. Sheesh.


19 posted on 02/13/2014 7:38:00 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; Starstruck; Windflier

Kansas: AKA The Best State in the Union :)


20 posted on 02/13/2014 7:42:20 PM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion
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 :-)

21 posted on 02/13/2014 7:49:35 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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


22 posted on 02/13/2014 8:49:49 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I sure wouldn’t. And the only reason these people do this sort of thing is to promote their agenda.


23 posted on 02/14/2014 3:54:58 AM PST by al_c (Obama's standing in the world has fallen so much that Kenya now claims he was born in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: al_c

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.


24 posted on 02/14/2014 5:27:35 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Progov

Yep ... that’s usually how these things play out.


25 posted on 02/14/2014 5:28:42 AM PST by al_c (Obama's standing in the world has fallen so much that Kenya now claims he was born in America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

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.


26 posted on 02/14/2014 5:32:53 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

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.


27 posted on 02/16/2014 5:57:56 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sakic

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?


28 posted on 02/26/2014 11:59:52 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

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.


29 posted on 02/27/2014 9:50:33 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sakic

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”?


30 posted on 02/27/2014 9:57:47 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

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?


31 posted on 03/01/2014 2:01:06 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sakic

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.


32 posted on 03/02/2014 8:32:14 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

How would you write the law to apply to your rules?


33 posted on 03/03/2014 5:55:29 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sakic

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.


34 posted on 03/04/2014 12:10:53 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Is this a federal or state law?


35 posted on 03/06/2014 12:09:06 PM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sakic

Jurisdiction is irrelevant.

That’s what the law would be “If I were Emperor of the World”.


36 posted on 03/06/2014 3:33:40 PM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Good luck on becoming emperor of the world.


37 posted on 03/08/2014 5:17:24 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sakic

I have no expectation of becoming so.

You asked me my opinion of allowable bounds of the “right to refuse service”, I told you.


38 posted on 03/08/2014 5:22:20 AM PST by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

Thanks for the good news.


39 posted on 03/08/2014 5:33:40 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson