Kansas tries to go Jim Crow on LGBT Couples

[Norstal]

>Local supermarket don't serve gays.
>Next supermarket is 50 miles because you live in a rural town.

What do?

The bill only permits discrimination as it relates to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement." So unless the supermarket is refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or something similar, they're not permitted to discriminate.

I'm not talking about the law here. I'm talking about the principle of the law. The principle that any publicly accommodated private institutions can do whatever it pleases.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

This is really fucking horrible.

No, it isn't Jim Crow, as it's government-allowed segregation rather than government-mandated segregation. However, if you're somehow trying to argue that this law is anything but a blatant violation of equal treatment under the law, that it doesn't make LGBT people second-class citizens at best, and that it isn't utterly unfair, bigoted, irrational, and destructive to our progress as a people and as a single nation...that's an insane and wrongheaded position, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to make such a vile claim.

[Threlizdun]

Drive to other supermarket. If the local supermarket chooses to deny service to homosexuals purely because they can, that makes them pretty horrible people. But it is their choice.

Drive 50 miles to get food every week. Or vote in local election to force said supermarket to open up to gays.

Decision decision...

Or have the law struck down as unconstitutional because it absolutely is

[Norstal]

Drive 50 miles to get food every week. Or vote in local election to force said supermarket to open up to gays.

Decision decision...

Indeeds.

So vote to force private businesses to open up their shops to the public. Got it.

[Gallup]

>Local supermarket don't serve gays.
>Next supermarket is 50 miles because you live in a rural town.

What do?

The bill only permits discrimination as it relates to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement." So unless the supermarket is refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or something similar, they're not permitted to discriminate.

It's funny how the OP didn't mention that.

[Natair]

This is really fucking horrible.

No, it isn't Jim Crow, as it's government-allowed segregation rather than government-mandated segregation. However, if you're somehow trying to argue that this law is anything but a blatant violation of equal treatment under the law, that it doesn't make LGBT people second-class citizens at best, and that it isn't utterly unfair, bigoted, irrational, and destructive to our progress as a people and as a single nation...that's an insane and wrongheaded position, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to make such a vile claim.

Beautiful.

[Lithosano]

>Local supermarket don't serve gays.
>Next supermarket is 50 miles because you live in a rural town.

What do?

The bill only permits discrimination as it relates to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement." So unless the supermarket is refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or something similar, they're not permitted to discriminate.

'

You seem to be under the impression that the obvious loophole won't be abused. "Any similar arrangement" is quite vague wording, and I can almost guarantee that, with the fervent hatred homophobes can conjure up, they're going to run with it.

[Auralia]

"You filthy niggers stay out of my restaurant" and "you filthy faggots stay out of my restaurant" are both equally harmful and disgusting statements made to discriminate against a person because of what they were born as.

Except the bill doesn't actually permit that sort of discrimination. It only permits discrimination as it relates to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

[The 93rd Coalition]

Indeeds.

So vote to force private businesses to open up their shops to the public. Got it.

It would make sense in that particular situation. People should not be allowed to starve, but in a relatively normal situation where there are 3 or 4 supermarkets within a reasonable area, they should not be allowed to force that supermarket to open to everyone.

[Auralia]

The bill only permits discrimination as it relates to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement." So unless the supermarket is refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or something similar, they're not permitted to discriminate.

I'm not talking about the law here. I'm talking about the principle of the law. The principle that any publicly accommodated private institutions can do whatever it pleases.

Except that's not the principle of that bill, since it doesn't allow private businesses to do whatever they please.

[Luveria]

"You filthy niggers stay out of my restaurant" and "you filthy faggots stay out of my restaurant" are both equally harmful and disgusting statements made to discriminate against a person because of what they were born as.

Except the bill doesn't actually permit that sort of discrimination. It only permits discrimination as it relates to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Like being in a relationship with each other.

[Auralia]

The bill only permits discrimination as it relates to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil
union or similar arrangement." So unless the supermarket is refusing to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple or something similar, they're not permitted to discriminate.

'

You seem to be under the impression that the obvious loophole won't be abused. "Any similar arrangement" is quite vague wording, and I can almost guarantee that, with the fervent hatred homophobes can conjure up, they're going to run with it.

I fail to see how buying groceries at a supermarket can be construed as "providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges...related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

[Wisconsin9]

Well. Can't wait to see the courts kill this thing dead.

[San]

So vote to force private businesses to open up their shops to the public. Got it.

It would make sense in that particular situation. People should not be allowed to starve, but in a relatively normal situation where there are 3 or 4 supermarkets within a reasonable area, they should not be allowed to force that supermarket to open to everyone.

50 miles isn't really that reasonable an area, now, is it?

[The 93rd Coalition]

It would make sense in that particular situation. People should not be allowed to starve, but in a relatively normal situation where there are 3 or 4 supermarkets within a reasonable area, they should not be allowed to force that supermarket to open to everyone.

50 miles isn't really that reasonable an area, now, is it?

Precisely.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

EDIT: Requires more research.

[Othelos]

This is really fucking horrible.

No, it isn't Jim Crow, as it's government-allowed segregation rather than government-mandated segregation. However, if you're somehow trying to argue that this law is anything but a blatant violation of equal treatment under the law, that it doesn't make LGBT people second-class citizens at best, and that it isn't utterly unfair, bigoted, irrational, and destructive to our progress as a people and as a single nation...that's an insane and wrongheaded position, and you should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to make such a vile claim.

Exactly.

[Cannot think of a name]

Why the hell doesn't the Supreme Court just do what it should have done years ago and say that shit is unacceptable? Discrimination based on sexuality is fucking wrong, and the religious right of America need to grow up and accept that. #FuckKansas

The Supreme Court doesn't work that way, they don't just show up like SHAZAM! at the passage of an unconstitutional law. A challenge has to be made, and then that challenge has to go through the lower courts, appealed, then accepted by the Supreme Court.

[Greed and Death]

This.

All businesses should have the right to deny service, so I kind of support this.

The federal government disagrees.

In the matter of LGBT people the federal government has been quite in that regard. If there is not a state law businesses are allowed to discriminate in both service and hiring and firing.

[Lithosano]

'

You seem to be under the impression that the obvious loophole won't be abused. "Any similar arrangement" is quite vague wording, and I can almost guarantee that, with the fervent hatred homophobes can conjure up, they're going to run with it.

I fail to see how buying groceries at a supermarket can be construed as "providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges...related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Reason to believe that the groceries will be eaten by a gay person? There you go. Especially since the law makes it effectively impossible to fight against it.

[New Frenco Empire]

It's exactly like Jim Crow, except possibly worse, considering there is no bullshit "separate but equal" for LGBTs. It wouldn't surprise me if we really did hear about some ambulance crew refusing to treat a gay man soon.

Either way, the law is disgusting, and I'd love to get a crack at the sub-humans that proposed it. Can't wait for the lawsuits to tear it the fuck up, though.

[Farnhamia]

It's exactly like Jim Crow, except possibly worse, considering there is no bullshit "separate but equal" for LGBTs. It wouldn't surprise me if we really did hear about some ambulance crew refusing to treat a gay man soon.

Either way, the law is disgusting, and I'd love to get a crack at the sub-humans that proposed it. Can't wait for the lawsuits to tear it the fuck up, though.

The "sub-humans" remark is trolling. Knock it off.

[Ifreann]

It's an entirely valid comparison.

No it's not. There aren't any "Straight Only" water fountains.

You're right. Letting any employee at any business refuse service to gay people is far worse than having "Straight Only" water fountains.

Also, this probably only applies to cases when being gay comes into it, like Wedding Photographer or Cake baker. A laundromat service person will have no idea about the other persons orientation.

A far as I can see it applies to any employee who says that their religion prevents them from serving gay people. Which would include people working at a laundromat.

[Auralia]

Actually, it goes a touch farther than that.

State lawmakers engaged in heated debate over House Bill 2453, which would allow hotels, restaurants and stores in the state to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill would also allow government clerks to refuse to sign same-sex marriage licenses without threat of a lawsuit.

Read more: Kansas Bill Allowing Refusal of Service to Gay Couples Passes House | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2014/02/11/kansa ... z2tK5EMouk

Under this bill, a gay couple whose car broke down while passing through a town could be refused accommodations at a hotel or motel.

They could legally be turned away from restaurants.

They could be turned away from grocery stores.

They could be kept from buying clothing.

In other words, they could be refused any and all services, even those not related specifically to weddings or marriage, if it is known that they are a couple.

Not according to the actual text of the bill:

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.

[Cannot think of a name]

Indeeds.

So vote to force private businesses to open up their shops to the public. Got it.

Nothing in this law forces a company to sell shares on the stock market.