Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Daily Beast: Anti-Gay Jim Crow Comes to Kansas


Burgold

Recommended Posts

I think short-sighted people and greedy people are the kinds who would support this bill, viewing it as license to do as they please.

 

I think smarter people will realize that this bill gives the nut jobs of their religion free license to discriminate and news coverage will be all over it and this will give their religion a bad name.

 

Burgold, I wouldn't mind you asking the reverend if he thinks Muslims should have the same right to discriminate based on their religion. Also, ask the reverend what he thinks the public perception across the country will be when news starts showing citizens being denied services at business in the name of Christianity.

 

I fail to see how turning away business is greedy, short sighted is certainly a possibility 

 

Why shouldn't Muslims enjoy the same right as other religions subject to the limits of the laws?

 

the double standard of the state being able to legally discriminate by not recognizing a marriage and their citizens being punished for the same thing seems unequal . ....or is that unequal just?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this one isn't completely cut and dry for me.  For instance, if I own a bakery and someone comes in and wants to order a cake decorated with swaztikas I'd like to have the ability to say "no."  Now, how different is that from owning a bakery and seeing someone wearing a cross and saying "no" or seeing a gay couple come in and refusing to allow them to order a cake from my bakery for their wedding.

 

In my mind, each case carries different weight, but I think that the business owner does have a right to choose to turn away business for whatever reason be they discriminatory against Nazis, Christians, homosexuals, or any other group.  Heck, turn away dog owners if you're a cat person for all I care.  However, there is a certain level of moral ick to this Kansas law that I have a tough time working around.  To me, it is a bit different than no shoes, no shirt, no service because it is picking on only one group.

 

Still, I think Larry has the most important point.  Should Kansas be stepping in and saying that people in their state can't sue if they feel they are being unfairly discriminated against?  Isn't that for the courts to decide not the legislature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Still, I think Larry has the most important point.  Should Kansas be stepping in and saying that people in their state can't sue if they feel they are being unfairly discriminated against?  Isn't that for the courts to decide not the legislature?

 

and it is a good point, however the legislature makes the law.....the court settles disputes/conflicts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will also observe that the CLAIM is that this law also mandates that government employees have immunity to refuse to do their jobs for gays.

Burg,

Yes, I do feel a bit squeamish about the notion that you can discriminate against some groups, but not others, based on whether their particular group is on the "special" list.

Although part of it is that word, discrimination. I think we all agree that it's discrimination to refuse to serve blacks. But if my sports bar refuses to serve Eagles fans, is that discrimination?

(Although that may say more about how the word is selectively applied, than about some inherent difference between blacks and Eagles fans.)

I will also observe that the reason WHY certain groups gave been put on the "illegal to discriminate against" list, is because of a demonstrated historical pattern of widespread discrimination against them.

The Nazi may have the option of going to a cake decorator up the street, whereas the gay guy may not have any other options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how turning away business is greedy, short sighted is certainly a possibility 

 

Why shouldn't Muslims enjoy the same right as other religions subject to the limits of the laws?

No one (I think) has spoken of business as greedy, yet...

As long as no one thinks their religion is superior, I think we'd all say OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see how turning away business is greedy, short sighted is certainly a possibility 

 

Why shouldn't Muslims enjoy the same right as other religions subject to the limits of the laws?

 

the double standard of the state being able to legally discriminate by not recognizing a marriage and their citizens being punished for the same thing seems unequal . ....or is that unequal just?

 

Greedy in terms of favoring the law because it gives favoritism to their religion.

 

For Muslims, the law states services denied based on "religious beliefs." So unless specified, this can be any religion, so I'd like to know if the reverend supports ALL religions denying services, or just his religion. For example, would he be ok with gays being denied service and also with Muslims denying unescorted women services. 

 

It is a double standard to have business not allowed to discriminate but the government can. So nationwide there shouldn't be such discrimination in business nor in marriage. Religions shouldn't be forced to wed gays, and other religions and institutions should not be denied the ability to wed gays if they want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say this one isn't completely cut and dry for me.  For instance, if I own a bakery and someone comes in and wants to order a cake decorated with swaztikas I'd like to have the ability to say "no."  Now, how different is that from owning a bakery and seeing someone wearing a cross and saying "no" or seeing a gay couple come in and refusing to allow them to order a cake from my bakery for their wedding.

 

In my mind, each case carries different weight, but I think that the business owner does have a right to choose to turn away business for whatever reason be they discriminatory against Nazis, Christians, homosexuals, or any other group.  Heck, turn away dog owners if you're a cat person for all I care.  However, there is a certain level of moral ick to this Kansas law that I have a tough time working around.  To me, it is a bit different than no shoes, no shirt, no service because it is picking on only one group.

 

Still, I think Larry has the most important point.  Should Kansas be stepping in and saying that people in their state can't sue if they feel they are being unfairly discriminated against?  Isn't that for the courts to decide not the legislature?

 

The cake thing is different. Nazism is a choice and it supports violence. 

 

The last time business owners had full rights to turn away whomever they wanted for whatever reason, we had "separate but equal" and black people couldn't find lodging within certain towns and had to spend the night in a car, had to eat in the back of the restaurant if they'd even be served, etc.

 

Unfortunately too many in the country are still willing to deny services to other citizens for petty reasons, so anti-discrimination laws in business are still necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greedy in terms of favoring the law because it gives favoritism to their religion.

 

 

 

Never thought of it like that, has some merit.

 

Would you also say gays are greedy for wanting laws granting SSM? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everybody has the right to marry the person they love.

 

Correct.  There is what is considered norms in society which our laws are sometimes based.  If you let every living American marry the person they love there would be a lot of things considered outside the norm other than homosexuality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct.  There is what is considered norms in society which our laws are sometimes based.  If you let every living American marry the person they love there would be a lot of things considered outside the norm other than homosexuality.

The argument that same sex marriage is going to open the door for legalizing incest, beastiality, or pedophilia is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every adult has the right to marry another adult of the opposite gender.

 

Not everybody has the right to marry the person they love.

 

Well they can marry,just not be recognized all over the US

should they be granted the legal recognition and benefits?

 

should other groups as well?

 

are we going to pick and choose in just a slightly different level of discrimination ,or let love decide?

or political pull?

 

I'm sympathetic to discrimination claims, not so much to just slight adjustments that will still discriminate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct.  There is what is considered norms in society which our laws are sometimes based.  If you let every living American marry the person they love there would be a lot of things considered outside the norm other than homosexuality.

For four decades, the worldwide consensus view of the medical and psychological community is that homosexuality is neither a disorder nor an abnormality.

Well they can marry,just not be recognized all over the US

should they be granted the legal recognition and benefits?

 

should other groups as well?

What other groups are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What other groups are you referring to?

 

polygamy and familial relations spring to mind....and please don't tell me they cannot be in love or are going to pollute the gene pool

 

why not them?....consenting adults in love

Link to comment
Share on other sites

polygamy and familial relations spring to mind....and please don't tell me they cannot be in love or are going to pollute the gene pool

 

why not them?....consenting adults in love

Skipping over how insulting it is (very) to compare same sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, beastiality, marrying objects, etc. This is a tired, desperate argument that has been torn apart over and over and over again both logically and legally. Polygamy is not a commitment between two consenting adults. There is empirical evidence that polygamy and incestuous relationships have measurable, provable, and repeatable negative consequences. No such evidence exists for same sex marriage.

 

But forgetting all that, we all know that legalizing same sex marriage isn't going to lead to those things because laws allowing them simply will not pass.

So what percentage of countries in that worldwide view bought into that line of thinking?

A large percentage of people remain ignorant of the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A large percentage of people remain ignorant of the facts.

 

Didn't answer my question.

The US isn't exactly in the dark ages in the world with relation to full acceptance of homosexuality.

 

Again, there are societal norms.  Not saying I am against same sex marriage, just stating the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skipping over how insulting it is (very) to compare same sex marriage to 

 

Then why are you doing it?

 

limiting it to two differs from limiting it to male/female how?

 

You insult my intelligence and science to say incestual marriage is more of a societal problem than many other things we allow.

 

add

IF I was in love with my brother enough to marry him how does that harm society more than any SSM?(after age of consent naturally)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe it either...of course he is off base on his other points as well

You're talking about me? You somehow take the two statements below and say I'm comparing homosexuality and pedophilia?

 

"The argument that same sex marriage is going to open the door for legalizing incest, beastiality, or pedophilia is weak."

 

"Skipping over how insulting it is (very) to compare same sex marriage to incest, pedophilia, beastiality, marrying objects, etc. This is a tired, desperate argument that has been torn apart over and over and over again both logically and legally."

 

If you want to see people actually make that comparison, a simple Google search of 'homosexuality pedophilia' will bring up plenty of results. Your point that legalizing same sex marriage is going to open the door for marital impropriety is the one that is off base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never thought of it like that, has some merit.

 

Would you also say gays are greedy for wanting laws granting SSM? 

 

No, they want equal treatment. That's not greed. Greed requires wanting excess.

 

The ones favoring the bill because that gives their religion the ability to pick and choose are greedy because they are in favor of something that allows them to deny equal treatment to others. 

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...