Kansas brings back the Jim Crow era... With a new target

[CellarDweller]

I hope this is done away with very quickly.

[marshlander]

Kansas may have gone a bit further, but the thought has also cropped up in Idaho ...

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/02/12/us-...tect-gays/

[Bluelight]

I can't help but ask, do the people who proposed this law really expect us to believe that this is meant to "protect religious liberty"? Or do they really just not care that anyone with half an educated mind can see right through what they're saying? Either way, their lack of intelligence is mind-blowing.

[Pix]

^^

I'm pretty sure that at least some of them would reveal in brain scans that they're not using the parts of their brain that reason when they call it "religious liberty." A study found those with strong political views not only were able to tune out or redefine what was inconvenient to consider (bypassing the parts of the brain that reason) but even got a chemical rush out of doing so. I'd love to see that study done on people like this as well, I bet it would be the same, perhaps even stronger.

Still, they've done that for years, even just called it "liberty" (while not supporting other religious liberties like slavery--well, not most of the time) which I've always found surreal, as was the time I saw a sign (held by a middle aged woman!) saying tyranny prevailed when Prop 8 was thrown out by the courts as unconstitutional. Right, tyranny, gays can marry due to the constitution promoting equality under the law, a sure sign you're living in a terrifying police state like Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or even under Vlad the Impaler. But obviously she didn't feel she was the epic idiot she appeared to be to me and many (hopefully most) others. And I bet she'd be fast to say how we lived in a Republic, not a Democracy where the majority can vote away the rights and money of minorities (that is, the rich), too (most like her will).

And I can't forget when someone put me on the mailing list of several right wing and antigay organizations (without informing me or knowing I was gay) and many of the junk mail and calls I got expected someone who was both right wing and a moron. For example, I got a "Republican Voter's Guide" in the mail which was the regular voter's guide so dumbed down that it only had a few pages (if that much) and also a tear away bit to take in the voting booth with you to tell you how to vote on the measures. And in the part of asking for money it also included this:

IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE

On the other side of the flap were the bold red words:

Please be sure to place your check and completed contributions form in the envelope before sealing the envelope.

The instructions:

Have You:

[i]1. Filled our your contribution form (please print legibly)

2. Enclosed your check made out to CRP

3. Placed your check and contribution form in this envelope

4. Affixed a first class stamp

When you have completed these simple steps please place this envelope in a mailbox today![/i]

Obviously, they don't expect their supporters to be that bright.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

The problem is we are forgetting that First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I fear that like it or not when we shut down people who are saying shit out of their belief that is what their religion believes, or forcing people to serve others who are an affront to their religious beliefs, we are short circuiting the First Amendment.

When Fred Phelps and company assemble outside of a vet funeral and chant 'Gods Hate Fags' that is the right to peacefully assemble and the freedom of speech.... Yeah sure their message sucks, but in America the constitution allows people to be sucky and say sucky things.

Forcing establishments to serve any people who they feel their religion doesn't want them serving is contrary to that First Amendment... Yeah I know it sucks to be part of a minority that that religion hates.... To the point were they feel their religious obligation is to let a minority suffer or go without being served...

Congress is trying to pass laws to prohibiting the exercise of religious freedoms, So Kansas is going to do what no one else seems to think is needed and attempt (albeit poorly) to keep the Constitution by law.

Frankly I have never understood why anyone would want to be at a place that doesn't like them enough to serve them. This whole 'Regardless of my sexuality you MUST serve me' thing is a Gay Agenda and forcing ourselves on people.

Yeah sure, when it comes to public servants like cops and doctors and nurses - they must serve everyone with equal protection, but bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels - no one will die if they don't get served at Bigot's Bar and Grill, or if they don't get a room at Hotel Homophobe. There are Mc Donald's and Best Westerns.

As for Gay marriage, I fear that the government is going to force churches to do gay marriages. That steps on the constitutional rights of Churches to exercise their religion as they see fit. If a couple really wants the legal status of a marriage, then they can go to the justice of the peace or find one of those LGBT tolerant/Affirming Churches.

In a rush to protect the religious freedoms from a Fed all hell bent on playing to the minority (LGBT), states are going to make huge mistakes like this.

The Fed should seriously reconsider forcing everyone to comply to acceptance of LGBT - and settle for forcing public hospitals, police and fire departments to have to serve everyone, and allow private hospitals, and business decide for themselves who they serve.

Yes I know it will suck and a lot of business will ban blacks, jews, gays, Asians whatever - but you know humans are naturally haters and haters gonna hate... For everyone that hates there is a business that is tolerance and accepting.

IF this was a free capitalist society like everyone keeps insisting is the best damn economic standard of the world, then it stands to reason that with a majority of those favoring Gay rights - 52% - Then allow them to use the power of their wallet to deal blows to those establishments that don't tolerate.

[MisterTinkles]

And those people who are denied have the right to sue for discrimination, and I hope they do.

[Lilitu]

One of the things that I don't understand is this:

what sort of situations are they expecting that would call for the need of such protections?

What I mean is, I didn't realise there were specific restrictions some religions or beliefs had that would require followers of its belief to dissociate themselves completely from LGBT people, even when the situation is not to do with spirituality or sexuality.

[Pix]

As for Gay marriage, I fear that the government is going to force churches to do gay marriages. That steps on the constitutional rights of Churches to exercise their religion as they see fit. If a couple really wants the legal status of a marriage, then they can go to the justice of the peace or find one of those LGBT tolerant/Affirming Churches.

No, they can't. Not in many places. (Maybe you intended that as hypothetically in the future?)

But if the churches want to pass a measure that allows them to "opt out" of anything like that then more power to them. I'd vote for it, though I don't share your view of that happening (just like religious institutions are still exempt from many standards, including laws against child abuse), and only after I've proof read it many times to make sure it wasn't trickery of some sort.

[Miles]

And those people who are denied have the right to sue for discrimination, and I hope they do.

Evidently they have to pay for the legal fees of those businesses they sue however.

[southbiochem]

This is what I don't undertsand about the world today, in general

many countries abide for freedom of religion....Nice

many countries abide for human rights, no discrimination, equality. Nice.

But what happens when the excercise of a religion (because some deity says "this is sin") is a clear attack on human rights, and no-discrimination and equality?

I mean, the case in the Western world is clear: most religions and LGBT rights, do not go by hand in hand (sure they used to be worse)

Don't even get me started on Islam, that thing whipes its butt with human rights, women rights, LGBT rights, you name it.

Where is the legislation, the UN branch that can solve this paradox?