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

Skip to comments.

Kansas Bill To Legalize Anti-Gay Discrimination Unlikely To Pass In State Senate
International Business Times ^ | February 17, 2014 | Eric Brown

Posted on 02/17/2014 8:39:57 PM PST by Coronal

A bill passed by the Kansas House of Representatives that could legalize discrimination against gay couples seems unlikely to pass in the state Senate, according to Kansas lawmakers.

On Wednesday, the Kansas House voted 72-49 to approve HB 2453, which offers legal protection to individuals and businesses that refuse service for same-sex couples, specifically those looking to get married. Under the bill’s language, individuals, businesses and government employees would be immune from legal reprisal for refusing service if they have “sincerely held religious beliefs” opposing customers’ marriages. Though the bill is described as protecting religious freedom, LGBT organizations see it as condoning open discrimination.

(Excerpt) Read more at ibtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: 113th; businesstimes; ericbrown; hissyfit; homosexualagenda; ibt; ks2014; lavendermafia; mediabias; pinkjournalism; pravdamedia

1 posted on 02/17/2014 8:39:57 PM PST by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coronal

WHY would the senate not pass this? Kansas Freepers, give us some intel on this. What is wrong with the cowards in the state senate, and can we throw them out ASAP?


2 posted on 02/17/2014 8:42:59 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

sexual orientation was not a “protected class” under Federal or State of Kansas law, so I think this action by the Kansas House caused more problems than it could ever solve. The Left is raising money off of this “do nothing” legislation and our candidates will be attacked over it. I absolutely oppose any expansion of civil rights law, but it was dumb to lead with our chins with this legislation.


3 posted on 02/17/2014 8:43:45 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

Though the bill is described as protecting religious freedom, LGBT organizations see it as condoning open discrimination.


But LGBT say what they do in private won’t harm anyone. That must be another leftwing lie.


4 posted on 02/17/2014 8:51:27 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

Does anyone else detect just a smidgen of bias in this title?


5 posted on 02/17/2014 8:55:32 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

I love the term “legalizing anti gay discrimination” as if we aren’t supposed to realize how loaded that term is. It simply gives businesses the right to decide what they recognize as marriages, this phrasing makes it sound like Kansas is doing what Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Iran or Pakistan would do to homosexuals. Which I imagine was the intent of putting it that way.


6 posted on 02/17/2014 9:09:39 PM PST by freedom462
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All
... sexual orientation was not a “protected class” under Federal ...

With the exception of race, sex, tax status and age-based voting rights protected by the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments respectively, the states have never amended the Constitution to define protected classes which Congress would be able to protect under the "safety net" of the 14th Amendment.

In other words, the states are able to make laws which discriminate on any criterion not protected by constitutionally enumerated rights, imo, as long as such laws don't also unreasonably abrige the enumerated rights.

7 posted on 02/17/2014 9:15:28 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

I don’t get your view on this. There are now so many bakers, florists, musicians, Innkeepers etc. that have been sued and/or prosecuted by state district attorneys that it compels protective laws be established or reaffirmed to protect moral conscience.

Homosexuals are forcing Christians to bow down to their perverted lifestyles under threat of having their businesses closed down.

At some point all these infringements will come to a head and beg action be taken. Kansas was leading the pushback. Why should they bow to these perverts?


8 posted on 02/17/2014 9:41:10 PM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

bump!


9 posted on 02/17/2014 9:43:25 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

IIRC, the Int’l Business Times is owned by the New York Times, right?


10 posted on 02/17/2014 10:02:57 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I don’t know. This was the most up to date report I could find.


11 posted on 02/17/2014 10:11:23 PM PST by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It’s owned by IBT Media, which has no apparent connection with the Times.


12 posted on 02/17/2014 10:20:22 PM PST by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

I was thinking of the Int’l Herald Tribune. My mistake.


13 posted on 02/17/2014 10:33:07 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I will raise $2M for Sarah Palin's next run, what will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Wouldn’t it make sense to require the Senators to experience homosexuality prior to voting in favor of it?


14 posted on 02/18/2014 2:13:28 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

I guess Senates have outlived their usefulness. The tend to attract long term career criminals, I mean politicians, who have lost any connection whatsoever with their constituents but have used their experience to adroitly manipulate the electoral process to become virtually impossible to flush out of office.


15 posted on 02/18/2014 2:24:59 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
"to experience homosexuality
prior to voting in favor of it?"
presumably..If it's a Conservative-led political body, then
it won't pass..If it's a RINOs/'Rat led one, then it'll pass.

..as to the question; if it passes, the (KS) Senate
fairies shall be "dancing" in the alias.

16 posted on 02/18/2014 2:58:00 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

The law is indicative of how perverted our society is today.

We seem to think we have to pass special cut out rules so Bible believing Christians and Torah compliant Jews are not forced to celebrate sodomy.


17 posted on 02/18/2014 3:10:35 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

One reason this legislation is needed is that a growning number of municipalities and other political subdivisions ARE passing onerous anti-discrimination laws including sodomites and cross-dressers in Kansas. Some of these laws are Massachusetts-style in there severity. Sodomites use them to the hilt, often demanding wedding service vendors serve them even when counterfeit “marriage” isn’t possible in the state.


18 posted on 02/18/2014 4:12:15 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

It recognizes and would protect the first freedom reflected in the First Amendment Congress may not “prohibit the free exercise of religion;” and the very next dependent clause declares Congress may not write laws abridging the freedom of speech” Quite the opposite of the the enemy foreign and domestic desire of the ignorant sheep.


19 posted on 02/18/2014 5:00:17 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude; All
I just contributed to Representative Anthimedes who voted for the bill.
The Kansas Catholic Conference has a good flier on why they supported the bill.
I have been arguing with several people on the Left, defending those who voted in favor.
My views are tactical, I wish most of the contents of this bill were established law, I just think we did a bad job explaining it, and I wish it was divided into two bills.
Putting the government portions in the same bill with the private business portions made it confusing to some.
20 posted on 02/18/2014 7:08:34 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
Discrimination by private individuals, businesses, etc. is a constitutional right. Yes, it is.

Governments should protect and DEFEND the right to discriminate, not prosecute it.

21 posted on 02/18/2014 8:31:41 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

It is open discrimination. But it is not discrimination against gays, nor is it an attack on their right to be together.

The discrimination is a discrimination against an action, namely the act of getting married.


22 posted on 02/18/2014 9:39:57 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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