Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Beast: Anti-Gay Jim Crow Comes to Kansas


Burgold

Recommended Posts

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/13/anti-gay-jim-crow-comes-to-kansas.html#url=/articles/2014/02/13/anti-gay-jim-crow-comes-to-kansas.html

 

A new Kansas proposal would legalize discrimination against gay couples in the state, echoing one of the ugliest parts of American history.

 

On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives took a step back to the 1890s with a shameful bill that borrows from Jim Crow to legalize discrimination against gay couples. Approved by a vote of 72 to 49, House Bill No. 2453 would allow businesses and government employees to deny service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. The law specifies businesses with “public accommodations,” but—in effect—that covers almost everything.

 

What does this mean in the real world? If you and your partner want to go buy groceries, but the owner—or manager—doesn’t “agree” with your relationship, they can refuse you service. If you want to go the movies, and the owner decides she’s uncomfortable—she can kick you out. Hotels can deny entry, gyms can deny access, and restaurants can eject you without consequence.

------------------------------

 

Tomorrow, I'm going to speak to a reverend who is in favor of this bill and the religious protections it offers businesses.  If any have any questions pro or against let me know and I'll try to include them.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recall seeing some made-for-TV movie, decades ago, that basically told the story of a traveling salesman who couldn't get a hotel room, because he was Jewish. It left me with the impression that "public accommodation" laws were enacted, not to prevent discrimination against blacks, but against Jews.

I have no clue whatsoever if it's even remotely accurate. But if so, it's an interesting perspective on the notion of businesses discriminating for "religious reasons".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be a line of questioning: 

 

Do you think the law should grant your parishioners the right to refuse to serve non-Christians?  Because being non-Christian is against your religion? 

 

(Frankly, I suspect that the Bible speaks just a bit more, about Christianity, then it does about homosexuality.) 


BTW, I'm not sure I'd label the law the way it's labeled in the thread title. 

 

Did the Jim Crow laws allow discrimination?  Or mandate it?  

 

This one only does the former. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one thing to keep in mind is that this law focuses on the married/civil union/partnership status, not the more encompassing gay issue.

 

that state has chosen not to recognize that status at all.

 

I sure wish SCOTUS would decide who gets to decide

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the author cheapens his article by making the leap at the end that this law will lead to violence. He's massively oversimplifying the history of Jim Crow to reach that conclusion.  It's sensationalist and unnecessary.  The proposal itself already looks repugnant and shameful without making that leap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it has happened...can depends on many things

Be very difficult since religion is protected class.  Under federal law you can't discriminate due to race, gender, or religion.  Sexual orientation is not however protected.

 

I think it is a legit question to ask the reverend though.  How would you feel if the tables were flipped and businessed began banning Christians or would he consider banning Jews, Muslims or others who wanted to attend his services?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can non-Christians deny service to Christians based on religious beliefs?

Would seem reasonable to assume that it would apply equally, interestingly enough it would be a real eye opener when active Christians wake up and realize that they are in they are in the minority. I would simply add that if this law were allowed to stand (it won't because SCOTUS will strike it down) that it would serve those right who want to practice discrimination.

On a religious note, what a great way to shoe the love of Christ than to say to your neighbor, "Get out of my store queer!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one thing to keep in mind is that this law focuses on the married/civil union/partnership status, not the more encompassing gay issue.

that state has chosen not to recognize that status at all.

I sure wish SCOTUS would decide who gets to decide

He's gone to plaid.

Could you please quote the section of this law that says the government only endorses discrimination against MARRIED gays?

And, I will point out, if the law did, in fact, do that, then even then, your second claim is still as bogus as the first.

Passing a law that says "hey, everybody! The government passed a law that says it's cool do discriminate against them married gays!" is a recognition of gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's gone to plaid.

Could you please quote the section of this law that says the government only endorses discrimination against MARRIED gays?

And, I will point out, if the law did, in fact, do that, then even then, your second claim is still as bogus as the first.

Passing a law that says "hey, everybody! The government passed a law that says it's cool do discriminate against them married gays!" is a recognition of gay marriage.

read the dang bill linked and accept plaid is normal and legal

 

add

your use of recognition is hilarious btw

Be very difficult since religion is protected class.  Under federal law you can't discriminate due to race, gender, or religion.  Sexual orientation is not however protected.

 

I think it is a legit question to ask the reverend though.  How would you feel if the tables were flipped and businessed began banning Christians or would he consider banning Jews, Muslims or others who wanted to attend his services?

 

that is because ya'll wish to conflate the marriage /CU issue with the larger gay issue

 

why was polygamy not recognized ?...religion is protected in your assertion

 

what if businesses began banning ant-abortion protesters? 

 

ya need to get issue specific to equate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people care so much about gays that they would go out of their way to **** them over?

IMHO, one of the most ingenious/insidious things ever put out there by religious leaders was evangelizing.  I think the way fundamentalists think about gays (and a host of other 'afflictions') as an offshoot of that mindset.  God tells them they have to try to 'fix' these broken souls - at least in the interpretation of Gods words they choose to believe he does.  

 

The irony to me is how these same people are typically the ones who cry the loudest when the rest of society tells them that any part of their behavior is unwanted.  Saw it with zoning cases when I worked for community development ad nauseum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might be a line of questioning: 

 

Do you think the law should grant your parishioners the right to refuse to serve non-Christians?  Because being non-Christian is against your religion? 

 

(Frankly, I suspect that the Bible speaks just a bit more, about Christianity, then it does about homosexuality.) 

BTW, I'm not sure I'd label the law the way it's labeled in the thread title. 

 

Did the Jim Crow laws allow discrimination?  Or mandate it?  

 

This one only does the former.

Along the line of Larry's question, how do they reconcile this with John 3:16? The verse about salvation that doesn't exclude or discriminate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along the line of Larry's question, how do they reconcile this with John 3:16? The verse about salvation that doesn't exclude or discriminate?

How do you reconcile that verse with the ones that clearly discriminate?

could be by applying it to the subject it addresses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

something ya'll overlook is this is a response to state anti-discrimination laws being used to overturn marriage bans and also force people to go against their religion.

Should you be free from being sued for discriminating against SSM/CU in a state that both forbids and does not recognize them?

laws in flux are such fun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

something ya'll overlook is this is a response to state anti-discrimination laws being used to overturn marriage bans and also force people to go against their religion.

Ah, so this was a response to Kansas passing a state law mandating that businesses can't discriminate against gays?

I would have assumed that they had no such law.

 

laws in flux are such fun

 

 

Running from claim to claim, to try to justify legislated endorsement for discrimination, is such fun. 

 

For some people. 

 

Obviously. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so this was a response to Kansas passing a state law mandating that businesses can't discriminate against gays?

I would have assumed that they had no such law.

 

 

Running from claim to claim, to try to justify legislated endorsement for discrimination, is such fun. 

 

For some people. 

 

Obviously.

In other states Larry

If you wish clarification on any claim of mine ask for it....or keep avoiding your choice

If a state refuses to recognize a union,why should the citizens of that state be under a different standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...