Skip to comments.Kansas' anti-gay bill: another attempt to force warped Christianity on others
Posted on 02/18/2014 8:05:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Conservatives keep trying to use America's religious freedom as a way to limit everyone else's rights.
Last week, the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill (pdf) that would have broadly legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians. Luckily, after national outrage, the bill was halted. But the fight isn't over: the bill's reliance on religious freedom to justify discrimination is a sign of right-wing efforts to come.
The bill's scope was impressive in its expansiveness: Kansans would have been able to legally refuse to provide just about any service to anyone whose relationship they dislike for religious reasons, and could have refused to provide services "related to" any relationship they dislike for religious reasons. The bill specifically enumerated adoption, foster care, counseling, social services, employment and employment benefits, as well as the general categories of "services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges", as permissible areas for discrimination.
In other words, under the bill, any individual Kansan could have hung a "No Gays, No Lesbians, No Dogs" sign on the door of his restaurant. Any individual Kansan could have refused to hire someone, serve someone a drink, rent someone an apartment, sell someone a pair of pants or accommodate someone at a hotel if that someone is gay. Any employer could even have refused to extend insurance coverage to a gay employee's husband or wife if he thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. Even government employees paid with everyone's tax dollars would have had carte blanche to discriminate social workers don't have to work with gay couples, police officers don't have to come to the assistance of a gay person in need....
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
It’s a private business, you commie Guardianistas.
Kansans, you should pressure your legislature to MOVE THESE PROTECTIONS FORWARD!
Can businesses hang a “No Christians” sign on the door?
Why do the liberals decry efforts to “force” what they call a warped view of Christianity on others, while they are forcing homosexual marriage and other aspects of the “gay” agenda on all of us through the courts?
So, are you only forcing something on others if you are coming from a conservative or religious point of view, but forcing a liberal view is not officially being forced on people??? What am I missing???
“under the bill, any individual Kansan could have hung a “No Gays, No Lesbians, No Dogs”
keep the dogs, the rest of the animals however..
So in other words, only religious people should be discriminated against, but not gays. sheesh.
The Guardian... don’t they have a queen’s ass to kiss? “Royalty”... what’s wrong with these people?
If people are behaving themselves, how would a service provider know if people are straight, gay, or whatever? Why would they turn away business? Another niche for obtrusive government?
The higher disease rate and lower life expectancy of gays are a product of Christianity. Wow, I’ll have to remember that!
Even if fairly gun friendly states like Arizona a private business or private home may ban firearms even if the gun owner has a permit.
It would seem if a business can suspend the second amendment right, which is quite clearly spelled out, they should be able to ban make believe rights as well.
I’m looking for an “article” where Little Jilly addresses that “warped” Islam.
Don’t hold your breathe while you look.
freedom of association does not require any religion
Since she also works for Al Jazeera, don’t expect any.
The only people forcing anything on anyone are gays. If a business owner turns them down as a result of conflict of conscience, Gays can always go elsewhere. There are plenty of people who put money first who are happy to serve gays. Why should gays be allowed to force their immorality on people who want nothing to do with it? Let gays start their own cake and wedding businesses, catering to gay couples, and let them refuse to serve whomever they please. If culturally ignorant leftists want to celebrate their unity with gays, let them use gay services. Christians don’t care.
They know it's total BS.
Their goal is to establish a meme within the ignorant and stupid...which they cultivate into a cultural norm...and VOTES.
They are about as low as humans get.
A private business? Yes. If a Muslim runs a restaurant and does not wish to serve me, I’ll go elsewhere. If a Hindu runs a juice bar and does not wish to serve me, I have no right to compel him to do so with force.
It is BASIC liberty to have the freedom to refuse to provide a product or service.
It's just like firing someone in the modern era. You NEVER tell them they are fired "for cause" and you NEVER give them a reason why you're letting them go, except their job has been eliminated.
If somebody doesn't want to serve homo's, they just should not say it's because they're homo.
I am amazed at the number of people who do not understand the difference between refusing to celebrate an anti-religious event and serving people who you might find personally objectionable.
If you work in a field that can be used to further the homosexual agenda (like a baker who makes wedding cakes), you are currently REQUIRED to surrender your right to free exercise of religion, should a homosexual request you to serve their agenda.
I was trying to get through the comments on the website. Gave up. The vitriol towards Biblical Christians is astounding. The Devil knows his time is short, and he’s not happy about it at all.
***n other words, under the bill, any individual Kansan could have hung a “No Gays, No Lesbians, No Dogs” sign on the door of his restaurant. Any individual Kansan could have refused to hire someone, serve someone a drink, rent someone an apartment, sell someone a pair of pants or accommodate someone at a hotel if that someone is gay.***
I thought Jill Filipovic was going to give us some bad news.
God needs His warriors here on earth , active , now
The Bill’s supporters need to run ads featuring the businesses punished for practicing their Faith by gays who claim their “marriage” won’t impact heterosexuals.
Which is why the FedGov doesn't want you to have it.
No. Religion, race, sex and national origin are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Sexual orientation is not protected under federal law, but is under the laws of some states.)
It’s hard to single out a starting point to critique that article.
To begin with, Christians need to remember not to be a stumbling block (are you listening Wesborough Baptist Church?) for people who are struggling with homosexuality and/or being bullied by pro-gay activists and would be receptive to the good news of Jesus. This is evidenced by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which indicates that certain members of that church had formerly been involved in same-sex sexual relationships, but had evidently repented and accepted God’s grace to turn their lives around.
Regarding the article referenced in the OP, take Christian cake-makers for example. Wouldn’t competing, non-Christian bakeries appreciate their competitive edge concerning their willingness to make cakes for anybody who patronized their business?
Also, one state shouldn’t care what businesses in another state are doing as long as everybody respects everybody else’s constitutionally enumerated rights.
Also, how was the so-called national rage determined? Or is that just a pro-gay media fabrication to give gays a safty in numbers feeling?
As mentioned in related threads, the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against the gay agenda, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
ALL “anti-discrimination” laws are unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when applied to private businesses or individuals, because the law must subjugate one party’s views under the other. The ONLY option is for the government to stay completely out of it, letting people run their businesses into which they’ve invested their own fortunes, time and massive efforts, all at the great risk of unknown success or failure.
Clearly, Jill Filipovic is a perfect example of the fact that when enough people cover themselves in horse sh*t, the whole planet begins to praise sh*t.
Except of course, the civil rights mandates on private businesses from 1964 have withstood all constitutional challenges.
Of course the vast majority of people have no issues with government saying you cannot discriminate in a business on the basis of RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, GENDER, or DISABILITY (since the ‘90s). But of course piggybacking the FAKE category of “sexual orientation” (since when does a chosen sexual behavior make you a minority?) onto that laundry list is extremely easy for the courts to do, even though, by default....it automatically discriminates against people of religion.
“Can businesses hang a No Christians sign on the door?”
I would certainly hope so, since it’s called freedom of association or just plain freedom. The Supreme Court likely disagrees, but they don’t exactly have a very good record of protecting constitutional rights beyond abortion (which isn’t really a constitutional right in the first place, but they claim it is and act as though it’s the SUPREME right).
BTW, I’m a Christian, and I have no problem with anti-Christian bigots who don’t want my business. I’ll simply take that business elsewhere. That’s what people do in a free country. Liberty gets messy of course. Some people might even get offended, but freedom is worth a bit of offense from time to time.
Also, the constitution was written to restrain GOVERNMENT, not private citizens; therefore, the government is absolutely prohibited from showing favoritism or discriminating against anyone on the basis of constitutionally protected differences like race, sex, or religion.
Those prohibitions were never intended to apply to private citizens conducting business on their own property of course. Your rights do not give you the right to force me to associate with you on my property.
You’re absolutely right. Your 2nd Amendment rights do not give you the right to carry weapons on other people’s private property, although private citizens have limited ability to enforce a gun ban beyond maybe asking you to leave.
The constitution was written to restrain government, not We the People. The 2nd Amendment applies to government in that it—the government—cannot infringe on our right to bear weapons. The thought of gun restrictions on private property was probably never even contemplated at the time as that has nothing to do with a restriction meant for the federal government.
The constitution was clearly and wisely written to put the federal government in a straight jacket of enumerated powers. It wasn’t meant to restrain We the People, because our rights are God-given, i.e. greater than the government’s.
You make some excellent points. If homosexuals want to be a constitutionally protected class, all they have to do is pass a constitutional amendment. They are trying to go around that of course by claiming equal treatment under the laws. Why? Because they don’t have anywhere near enough supporters to pass a constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, that’s how it’s done in a nation of laws.
BTW, if they choose to subvert the law and constitution like they’re currently doing by getting judges to overturn laws like super legislators, then the homosexualists deserve as much derision and push back as we can give. Barbarians don’t deserve any respect, and that’s exactly what they are.
No. Only government is allowed to do that.
A business couldn’t legally ban Christians, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is clearly unconstitutional. The government can’t amend the constitution via law, and those class protections restrain government, not citizens. The 14th Amendment extended those protections to states (state governments), but again, nowhere in the constitution does it say I can’t discriminate on the basis of sex, race, or religion so long as I’m not acting in government capacity, like an official.
If I’m wrong, please point me to the area of the constitution that limits my right to associate or not associate with whoever I want.
Just because most Americans agree with the Civil Right Act, it doesn’t mean the act is constitutional. I fully understand that’s where we stand today, but the Supreme Court has rewritten the constitution in virtually every area. That doesn’t make it right, but it is the way things are done these days.
I should add that whenever the Supreme Court tries to act as a super legislature, it simply creates further malfeasance and chaos. If, on the other hand, it stuck with strictly interpreting the law, then we could still join together on issues that have overwhelming public support (like the right of government to force you to do business with people you don’t want) and amend the constitution.
An amendment isn’t easy of course, but it practically guarantees broad support for whatever is passed. It also eliminates a lack of respect for law and continual conflict created by courts who make up the law as they go.
Kansas’ anti-gay bill: another attempt to resist warped progressive ideology from being forced on the moral majority.
Is it an inability to understand or a refusal?
If the law passed? Yes. Unless they write it to only protect Christian Kansas.
These whiners don’t know how good they’ve got it here. In countries controlled by that other religion, a girl can be stoned to death for having a Facebook page.
Sure...the Christians are warped.....never mind the fudge packers.....how the hell did we get to this????
Not yet—but they can send their private army Either the gay activists —or the ACLU and it’s umbrella of anti-American activists in to threaten a long and costly legal case where the Christian can expect to go before a hostile and anti-Christian Judge.
Does Spok remember American history—how same sex behavior/Sodomy was a Crime of Infamy worthy of death. When the First Amendment protections applied only to Christians? — When Marriage was defined by the Courts as the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of Matrimony-when the Rights of Conscience were protected by Law — and Sundays under our US Constitution and by Law a Dies Non —When congress was not ashamed to petition the President to proclaim National Days of Prayer and Thanksgiving-and/or National Days of Humiliation ,Fasting ,and Prayer as the situation merited.Does this Gay Activist of the Gaurdian know anything about American history?Or is she a product of American Progressive Education?
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Public Accommodations Act of 1964 (part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) as a valid exercise of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, on the theory that racial discrimination in hotels and restaurants in the south limited the ability of blacks to travel to those states.
The commerce clause has been used to perpetuate more unconstitutional crap than any other words in the Constitution.
Freedom of association is a basic freedom.
In personal matters, certainly. In business, not so clear; even at English common law, certain businesses (inns, ferry boats, stagecoaches) were required to serve "any peaceable subject of the King" who paid the posted rate.