Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Beast: Anti-Gay Jim Crow Comes to Kansas


Burgold

Recommended Posts

 

 

Odd how someone can claim that a law which grants complete immunity from any and all legal action "does nothing". 

 

complete immunity if it meets the controlling criteria is not complete immunity w/o it .

I have complete immunity from laws not relevant...or in existence

 

compelling govt interests are controlling whether spelled out in a bill or not....just as reasonable is(though reasonable certainly varies)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting the level of distortion you will employ.

The topic of the thread isn't "compelling a citizen to do something". It's "passing special laws to grant people more right to discriminate than they already enjoy".

Remember? This thread isn't about a law to make discrimination against gays in Arizona more illegal than it already is. It's about a law to make discrimination against gays in Arizona more legal than it already is.

Yes, but isn't the bigger concept in play here about whether a business owner can be compelled to serve gays vs. being allowed to discriminate to a degree?

 

I don't know any real Christian who would not be a good Samaritan to a gay person or couple or serve them at a restaurant and stuff like that. If they did act that way, that is not in line with the New Testament.

 

However, for many Christians, their conscience is violated (read: they are themselves committing a sin cf. 1 Corinthians 8-10 & Romans 14 explain this in the context of whether to eat food sacrificed to idols) when they are forced to participate in something that is sinful. I can only speak for myself here and how I see it (although a whole lot of others do as well I suspect), but its not the people being rejected (or at least it shouldn't be), but rather the celebration of sin and mockery of the sacred is being discriminated against. But I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no such language in the bill.

I've provided you with a link to the actual bill.

Quit lying about it.

 

There does not need to be that language in the bill.

Compelling govt interest exists in every state of the union and is drawn from the 1st amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL That should be it's own thread.  What is a real Christian.  Might be an all time classic.

 

I've had loads of fun with it over the years, my mom said real christians didn't drink coffee (Dr Pepper was perfectly acceptable,even if not quite mandated)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL That should be it's own thread.  What is a real Christian.  Might be an all time classic.

I'm sure it would. But even then, I think some things are universally held among the orthodox such as love thy neighbor. I only said it that way because I know church folks who aren't "real".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but isn't the bigger concept in play here about whether a business owner can be compelled to serve gays vs. being allowed to discriminate to a degree?

There is precisely one way they can be compelled to do so.

If the appropriate legislature passes legislation compelling them to do so.

 

This law (The law in the OP) does not say "if, at some future date, the Kansas legislature passes legislation that says business owners can't discriminate against gays, then that law won;t count (unless the same legislature repeals this law, too.)" 

 

It says, in Section 1: 

 

 

Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil

union or similar arrangement;

( b ) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or

( c ) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.

 

 

That's complete and total immunity from all laws (regarding any of those acts. 

 

Section 2 of that law then takes that blanket immunity, and runs further with it, saying that any person who invokes Section 1 is also immune from any civil action, or from any government action which would in any way disadvantage him. 

 

Look at section 1c, again.  It gives any person the power to declare your marriage invalid, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law". 

 

Let me also point out that section 2d explicitly states that government employees have this power, too.  When it states that, if a government employee decides to declare your marriage invalid, (no matter how many laws say otherwise), then the government agency has to find you a different employee, who will act like your marriage is valid "if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

However, for many Christians, their conscience is violated (read: they are themselves committing a sin cf. 1 Corinthians 8-10 & Romans 14 explain this in the context of whether to eat food sacrificed to idols) when they are forced to participate in something that is sinful. I can only speak for myself here and how I see it (although a whole lot of others do as well I suspect), but its not the people being rejected (or at least it shouldn't be), but rather the celebration of sin and mockery of the sacred is being discriminated against. But I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

But they aren't participating in a same sex marriage, they are being asked to photograph it. What you're telling me is that now a Christian is unable to objectively photograph a same sex marriage without sinning. Therefore the act of taking the photograph is now part of the sin which is against their religion. As such no Christian photo-journalist can photograph an act they consider sinful without it being sin for them.

That is absurd logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does not need to be that language in the bill.

Compelling govt interest exists in every state of the union and is drawn from the 1st amendment.

 

Ah, got it. 

 

It's there, because you made it up. 

 

Wonder why the other bill has it in there, then. 

 

Guess they must have written that law before you made it up. 

 

Wonder why Arizona included it in their law, too. 

 

Did you forget to tell them that you made it up? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, got it. 

 

It's there, because you made it up. 

 

 

 

Kindly ask any of our legal gurus if it exists and controls (even your total immunity) whether it is spelled out in a bill or not.

 

 ya might ask them what it commonly covers as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kindly ask any of our legal gurus if it exists and controls (even your total immunity) whether it is spelled out in a bill or not.

ya might ask them what it commonly covers as well

Why don't you ask them?

(Might help if you could settle down pesky details like which law you're talking about, and what this imaginary law you've invented supposedly says. Staying on one claim for two posts in a row might help, too. But I know it's hard, for you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you ask them?

(Might help if you could settle down pesky details like which law you're talking about, and what this imaginary law you've invented supposedly says. Staying on one claim for two posts in a row might help, too. But I know it's hard, for you.)

 

Because I know the answers.....I do get bored easily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they aren't participating in a same sex marriage, they are being asked to photograph it. What you're telling me is that now a Christian is unable to objectively photograph a same sex marriage without sinning. Therefore the act of taking the photograph is now part of the sin which is against their religion. As such no Christian photo-journalist can photograph an act they consider sinful without it being sin for them.

That is absurd logic.

I don't think its absurd. I think to characterize it so flies in the face of what Paul taught the Corinthians and Romans, which is to be considerate of others around you. It is a very complicated issue. I personally, while finding it utterly repulsive (referring to gay marriages), would not feel my conscience is violated.

 

I thought Russell Moore explained it well (even if Kirsten Powers disagrees).

 

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2014/02/20/should-a-christian-photographer-work-at-a-same-sex-wedding-ceremony/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but isn't the bigger concept in play here about whether a business owner can be compelled to serve gays vs. being allowed to discriminate to a degree?

 

 

 

This is the big concept.  And it was resolved long ago, back when the first Civil Rights statutes were passed.   There is nothing different about these arguments that there would be if a business owner claimed his or her religious beliefs preclude serving a black customer, or a female customer.  

 

That argument doesn't wash, it hasn't washed for 30 years, and it doesn't become a different argument just because the class protected by the civil rights statute is sexual orientation rather than race or gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the big concept.  And it was resolved long ago, back when the first Civil Rights statutes were passed.   There is nothing different about these arguments that there would be if a business owner claimed his or her religious beliefs preclude serving a black customer, or a female customer.  

 

That argument doesn't wash, it hasn't washed for 30 years, and it doesn't become a different argument just because the class protected by the civil rights statute is sexual orientation rather than race or gender.

 

pretty good summation.

if the level of scrutiny is different it then becomes a different matter though....have they settled on one for sexual orientation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think its absurd. I think to characterize it so flies in the face of what Paul taught the Corinthians and Romans, which is to be considerate of others around you. It is a very complicated issue.

Being considerate to others is a complicated issue? Really?

I don't care what the Old Testament, New Testament or any other religious book you care to mention says (not least as I am atheist) - being considerate to others is NOT a complicated issue. It's a matter of common decency and I personally do it because it's the right thing to do not because it's the key to my eleternal salvation and entry to heaven (being an atheist I don't believe in those concepts anyway of course).

Likewise not discriminating against other people based on factors like race, gender, religion or sexual orientation is not really a complicated issue either .....

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself my Dad always told me - can't go far wrong with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being considerate to others is a complicated issue? Really?

I don't care what the Old Testament, New Testament or any other religious book you care to mention says (not least as I am atheist) - being considerate to others is NOT a complicated issue. It's a matter of common decency and I personally do it because it's the right thing to do not because it's the key to my eleternal salvation and entry to heaven (being an atheist I don't believe in those concepts anyway of course).

Likewise not discriminating against other people based on factors like race, gender, religion or sexual orientation is not really a complicated issue either .....

Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself my Dad always told me - can't go far wrong with that.

It realy should be that simple.  It's a little idealistic, but that should be the goal.

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...