Kansas tries to go Jim Crow on LGBT Couples

[Gallup]

Yeah? Is this extended towards state institutions? Is the state denying their application to public schools? Are they prohibited to vote or pursue public office? Are they denied legal representation or are people with steel bats on the street being ignored by the police?

If you think this is worse than Jim Crow then you are so arbitrary in your judgement of history it is borderline offensive, but I will suspect that you are just pissed and that this was said in anger.

See, your problem is that you're trying to associate every single racist thing that ever happened as being Jim Crow which is just utterly fallacious. Jim Crow did not legally allow cops to ignore racist beatings; that was an entirely separate matter, as with most anti-black things of the day. Jim Crow was merely and only the establishment of the legal basis of "separate but equal." The homophobia present today very much isn't as bad as the racism of then, but the simple comparison of just these two laws points towards this one as being the worse of the two.

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

[Neutraligon]

For the record, this is what the bill actually says:

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.

In other words, this bill authorizes any individual to discriminate when such discrimination is related to the "celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement." It does not authorize general discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The question is what does "celebration of" mean. That part is very unclear. As I mentioned earlier, is a homosexual in a hospital together a "celebration" of a homosexual relationship? How about just living together? How about going shopping together?

[Auralia]

The right to believe in a certain religious doctrine and practice certain religious rituals is not absolute. Just like every other human right, its open to legitimate restrictions aimed at dealing with any related harmful phenomena.

That's true, though I would argue that the state has no interest in ensuring the availability of goods and services for gay weddings, and so individuals should be permitted to refuse to provide such goods and services. In any event, the notion that religious beliefs can't in any way impact the way one runs a business is ridiculous.

[Ifreann]

This thread is literally filled with people who didn't read the bill.

Yes, in Kansas (along with virtually every other state) private businesses don't have to recognize marriages they do not want to recognize. Church's don't have to perform them. Pastors don't have to. Congregants don't have to honor them. Florists don't have to set up flowers if they don't want to. This is all pretty 'duh' stuff. There's literally no chance in hell a gay couple, or a straight couple, would be able to successfully litigate against a church (or any other establishment or individual) on the basis of 'you do not accept our wedding.'

The statute takes away something that never even existed. But the second you reiterate this lack of civil recourse with a state statute? OH MAH GAWD RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION JUM CRUW!1!

Anybody can fact-check this?

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/me ... 0_0000.pdf

[Auralia]

The question is what does "celebration of" mean. That part is very unclear. As I mentioned earlier, is a homosexual in a hospital together a "celebration" of a homosexual relationship? How about just living together?

That's ultimately up to the courts to decide, though I'd imagine they'll choose a reasonable definition.

[Lithosano]

See, your problem is that you're trying to associate every single racist thing that ever happened as being Jim Crow which is just utterly fallacious. Jim Crow did not legally allow cops to ignore racist beatings; that was an entirely separate matter, as with most anti-black things of the day. Jim Crow was merely and only the establishment of the legal basis of "separate but equal." The homophobia present today very much isn't as bad as the racism of then, but the simple comparison of just these two laws points towards this one as being the worse of the two.

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

Just regular bigotry.

[New Frenco Empire]

See, your problem is that you're trying to associate every single racist thing that ever happened as being Jim Crow which is just utterly fallacious. Jim Crow did not legally allow cops to ignore racist beatings; that was an entirely separate matter, as with most anti-black things of the day. Jim Crow was merely and only the establishment of the legal basis of "separate but equal." The homophobia present today very much isn't as bad as the racism of then, but the simple comparison of just these two laws points towards this one as being the worse of the two.

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

Irrelevant and debatable. Next.

[Farnhamia]

See, your problem is that you're trying to associate every single racist thing that ever happened as being Jim Crow which is just utterly fallacious. Jim Crow did not legally allow cops to ignore racist beatings; that was an entirely separate matter, as with most anti-black things of the day. Jim Crow was merely and only the establishment of the legal basis of "separate but equal." The homophobia present today very much isn't as bad as the racism of then, but the simple comparison of just these two laws points towards this one as being the worse of the two.

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

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]"

[Yumyumsuppertime]

How so?

Christians believe that their purpose in life is to love God and follow Christ's teachings. As such, if they open a business, they must operate that business in accordance with those religious beliefs.

That's fine. Then they should go into a business that doesn't require them to violate those beliefs. I mean, I don't think that baking a wedding cake for two women getting married violates those beliefs, but someone else might. That person probably shouldn't be a baker. Similarly, someone who finds the distribution of alcohol to be sinful probably shouldn't work at a store that sells liquor.

[Threlizdun]

If they are acting on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth then they have a religious obligation to serve those people with the same love and respect as anyone else.

Indeed, and refusing to participate in a gay wedding is not unloving or disrespectful to the gay couple.

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? No, "I refuse to accept your marriage as marriage" is absolutely an unloving and disrespectful view.

[Neutraligon]

See, your problem is that you're trying to associate every single racist thing that ever happened as being Jim Crow which is just utterly fallacious. Jim Crow did not legally allow cops to ignore racist beatings; that was an entirely separate matter, as with most anti-black things of the day. Jim Crow was merely and only the establishment of the legal basis of "separate but equal." The homophobia present today very much isn't as bad as the racism of then, but the simple comparison of just these two laws points towards this one as being the worse of the two.

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

Are you still of the impression that phobia is only used to mean fear of? should the word extraordinary actually simply mean extra-ordinary rather then what it has come to mean today?

[Ifreann]

See, your problem is that you're trying to associate every single racist thing that ever happened as being Jim Crow which is just utterly fallacious. Jim Crow did not legally allow cops to ignore racist beatings; that was an entirely separate matter, as with most anti-black things of the day. Jim Crow was merely and only the establishment of the legal basis of "separate but equal." The homophobia present today very much isn't as bad as the racism of then, but the simple comparison of just these two laws points towards this one as being the worse of the two.

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

Does Homophobia really exist? I've never seen or hear of people actually being scared of gays only being jerks and avoiding them. If no one is actually scared should it still be called a phobia?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-phobe

The English suffixes -phobia, -phobic, -phobe (of Greek origin: φόβος/φοβία ) occur in technical usage in psychiatry to construct words that describe irrational, disabling fear as a mental disorder (e.g. agoraphobia), in chemistry to describe chemical aversions (e.g. hydrophobic), in biology to describe organisms that dislike certain conditions (e.g. acidophobia), and in medicine to describe hypersensitivity to a stimulus, usually sensory (e.g. photophobia). In common usage they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject. The suffix is antonymic to -phil-.

In common usage they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject. The suffix is antonymic to -phil-.

In common usage they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject.

dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject.

dislike or hatred

dislike or hatred

dislike or hatred

[Auralia]

Actually, it's quite clear that it's referring to the entire subsection.

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]

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

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.

[Threlizdun]

The question is what does "celebration of" mean. That part is very unclear. As I mentioned earlier, is a homosexual in a hospital together a "celebration" of a homosexual relationship? How about just living together?

That's ultimately up to the courts to decide, though I'd imagine they'll choose a reasonable definition.

Thankfully the constitution says the reasonable solution is to through this piece of garbage back to the dark age where it belongs.

[Aeken]

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.

Farm corrected you. You're just refusing to accept what homophobia means.

[Auralia]

snip

And I don't dislike or hate gay people. I just think the state has no interest in promoting or providing support for gay relationships.

[Farnhamia]

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.

You are incorrect, as several people have already pointed out. <ASB-like pause> You're welcome.

[Neutraligon]

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.

phobia has many uses as a suffix, one of which means fear. A surface can be hydrophobic, but that does not mean the surface fears water.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

We're talking about homophobes in Kansas.

Being in a non-heterosexual relationship will likely count as "celebration of domestic partnership or similar arrangement" to some people.

So in this great twenty-first century, we're not allowed to deny service to blacks for being black, we're not allowed to deny service to women for being women... but we can still deny service to gays for being gay? Go Kansas. Go fuck yourself.

If it was truly about "allowing freedom to deny service as seen fit", then the legislature would have done the sensible and tried to instead strike down all existing business discrimination laws. That would have worked, it would even have been less obvious. But no.
They introduced a resolution specifically targeting non-heterosexual couples.

The question must be asked, why?

[Auralia]

That's ultimately up to the courts to decide, though I'd imagine they'll choose a reasonable definition.

Thankfully the constitution says the reasonable solution is to through this piece of garbage back to the dark age where it belongs.

Why would the bill be unconstitutional?

[Gallup]

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.

Farm corrected you. You're just refusing to accept what homophobia means.

That's what people say the whole word means. I'm talking about the phobia suffix.

But this is off topic.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Actually, you are incorrect, and you were corrected in that very reply.

[Farnhamia]

snip

And I don't dislike or hate gay people. I just think the state has no interest in promoting or providing support for gay relationships.

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

[Greed and Death]

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

Are you still of the impression that phobia is only used to mean fear of? should the word extraordinary actually simply mean extra-ordinary rather then what it has come to mean today?

Maybe it is more accurate to call it homobashing.