NationStates

Neutraligon wrote:

Auralia wrote:Why would the bill be unconstitutional?

14th amendment equal protections clause.

Auralia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:The state should not provide people with excuses for discrimination. You wouldn't like being denied service, would you?

If I was gay, I wouldn't mind being denied service with respect to the celebration of a same-sex relationship, no. But then again, I believe same-sex relationships are immoral, so...

Auralia wrote:

Olthar wrote:So businesses are above the law?

No, of course not. I'm just saying that this bill isn't unconstitutional.

Auralia wrote:

Olthar wrote:So businesses are above the law?

No, of course not. I'm just saying that this bill isn't unconstitutional.

Neutraligon wrote:due to your religion

Auralia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:The state should not provide people with excuses for discrimination. You wouldn't like being denied service, would you?

If I was gay, I wouldn't mind being denied service with respect to the celebration of a same-sex relationship, no. But then again, I believe same-sex relationships are immoral, so...

San wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:due to your religion

silly neutra, everyone knows that, unlike the other things you listed, you can't change your religion!

Auralia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:It's quite clear that it isn't, as I read it.

Well, given that the title of the bill is "Protecting religious freedom regarding marriage", and given that 1(b) and 1(c) are about solemnizing marriages and treating marriages as valid, I'd say it's quite clear that the entirety of 1(a) refers to discrimination with respect to the celebration of same-sex relationships, not general discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Gallup wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Stop being disingenuous. As the Land of Square-Bracketed Footnotes says, "Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality or people who are identified or perceived as being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs.[1][2][3][4][5][6]"

That's not what phobia means. Phobia is a fear.

If I am incorrect, feel free to correct me. I don't like to be disingenuous.

Auralia wrote:

Olthar wrote:So businesses are above the law?

No, of course not. I'm just saying that this bill isn't unconstitutional.

Imperializt Russia wrote:The state is enacting a law which would serve to abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States.

It's literally the first Section of the text.

Threlizdun wrote:

Auralia wrote:
No, of course not. I'm just saying that this bill isn't unconstitutional.

Then you are wrong.

Ifreann wrote:Given that this is the Kansas state legislature, I have no difficulty believing that they're trying to protect all anti-gay discrimination, not just with respect to gay marriage.

Auralia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:The state is enacting a law which would serve to abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States.

It's literally the first Section of the text.

The state is only enacting this law in order to limit the applicability of other laws. The same effect could be achieved by repealing Kansas's anti-discrimination statute, etc. The absence of a law is clearly not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Neutraligon wrote:

Auralia wrote:
The state is only enacting this law in order to limit the applicability of other laws. The same effect could be achieved by repealing Kansas's anti-discrimination statute, etc. The absence of a law is clearly not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since the federal anti-discrimination statute would still exist, no. And again, you are ignoring the part where public employees can deny services.

Auralia wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:The state is enacting a law which would serve to abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States.

It's literally the first Section of the text.

The state is only enacting this law in order to limit the applicability of other laws. The same effect could be achieved by repealing Kansas's anti-discrimination statute, etc. The absence of a law is clearly not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The state is enacting a law which would serve to abridge the privileges of citizens of the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Auralia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Since the federal anti-discrimination statute would still exist, no. And again, you are ignoring the part where public employees can deny services.

There is no federal anti-discrimination statute restricting discrimination by private businesses on the basis of sexual orientation.

The portion of the bill relating to the provision of services by public employees may be struck down, but not those relating to private conduct.

Imperializt Russia wrote:snip

State Action.—“[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.”1 The Amendment by its express terms provides that “[n]o State . . .” and “nor shall any State . . .” engage in the proscribed conduct. “It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws.”2 While the state action doctrine is equally applicable to denials of privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection, it is actually only with the last great right of the Fourteenth Amendment that the doctrine is invariably associated.3

Auralia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Given that this is the Kansas state legislature, I have no difficulty believing that they're trying to protect all anti-gay discrimination, not just with respect to gay marriage.

Well, your personal feelings about the Kansas state legislature don't exactly constitute a robust method of statutory interpretation, do they?

Threlizdun wrote:And I presume you believe refusing to participate in an interracial wedding on the frounds of opposing interracial marriage is similarly not unloving of disrespectful?

Auralia wrote:

Threlizdun wrote:And I presume you believe refusing to participate in an interracial wedding on the frounds of opposing interracial marriage is similarly not unloving of disrespectful?

You presume incorrectly. Interracial marriage is not morally equivalent to same-sex marriage.

Ifreann wrote:

Auralia wrote:
Well, your personal feelings about the Kansas state legislature don't exactly constitute a robust method of statutory interpretation, do they?

Nor does judging the bill by its title, nor judging one section by another.

Auralia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Nor does judging the bill by its title, nor judging one section by another.

Actually, trying to determine what a particular provision of a bill means based on the context and purpose of the bill, as expressed by the title and other provisions, makes perfect sense.

Neutraligon wrote:

Auralia wrote:
You presume incorrectly. Interracial marriage is not morally equivalent to same-sex marriage.

Yes it is. Both couples live together, work together, are financially related, raise children together, etc. Legally they are not different.

Auralia wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
Yes it is. Both couples live together, work together, are financially related, raise children together, etc. Legally they are not different.

There is one crucial difference: an (opposite-sex) interracial couple is capable of entering into bodily union through sexual intercourse. A same-sex couple is not.

Neutraligon wrote:Since we are taking the bill as a whole, you cannot ignore the portion affecting public officials.

Neutraligon wrote:The civil rights act affects private business.