Kansas tries to go Jim Crow on LGBT Couples

[Neutraligon]

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.

They have as much reason to promote and support gay relationships as they do heterosexual relationships.

[San]

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.

sigh

you've had this explained to you infinite times now, ffs

[Threlizdun]

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.

It has always been the business of the state to provide support to marriage.

[Auralia]

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

But not to the legislature or the courts, and that's ultimately what matters.

[Olthar]

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.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... ?q=-phobia

"Fear or dislike"

[Neutraligon]

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?

14th amendment equal protections clause.

[New Connorstantinople]

Douchebaggy in the extreme, but its their service or goods, and I think they should be allowed to make business with those they agree with, and not with those they don't.

[Auralia]

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.

It has always been the business of the state to provide support to marriage.

I believe that an integral component of marriage is the bodily union achieved through sexual intercourse, which is only possible for opposite-sex couples who are not impotent. As such, a same-sex relationship can never constitute marriage.

[Neutraligon]

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

But not to the legislature or the courts, and that's ultimately what matters.

Can you assure that? The term celebration of is not very clear. It can be much more widely interpreted.

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

This shit was apparently understood at some basic level one hundred and sixty years ago. Can you seriously not manage today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Specifically granted the denial of service against the LGBT community, in whatever manner, can be construed perfectly rationally as "abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States", by placing them below others, which is Tyranny By Majority bullshit.

[Auralia]

Why would the bill be unconstitutional?

14th amendment equal protections clause.

Why would the bill be unconstitutional?

This shit was apparently understood at some basic level one hundred and sixty years ago. Can you seriously not manage today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Specifically granted the denial of service against the LGBT community, in whatever manner, can be construed perfectly rationally as "abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States", by placing them below others, which is Tyranny By Majority bullshit.

Equal protection applies only to government, not private businesses.

[Neutraligon]

Douchebaggy in the extreme, but its their service or goods, and I think they should be allowed to make business with those they agree with, and not with those they don't.

Considering the fact that this includes public employees, no. Also, a business works in the public sphere and should not have that right.

[Liriena]

In any event, the notion that religious beliefs can't in any way impact the way one runs a business is ridiculous.

Only because you seem to feel that people imposing their religious values on their customers is some sort of universal and fundamental ritual for all religions.

You can have a cross in your business, maybe even add a "God bless you" at the end of every purchase. I have no problem with that... but if you are going to use your own interpretation of your own responsibilities as a religious person to deny a paying customer your services or products, then we have a problem. Then, you are overstepping your boundaries as a businessperson.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It has always been the business of the state to provide support to marriage.

I believe that an integral component of marriage is the bodily union achieved through sexual intercourse, which is only possible for opposite-sex couples who are not impotent. As such, a same-sex relationship can never constitute marriage.

That's nice. However, that's a religious definition, with no application in secular law. Therefore, it's irrelevant when it comes to secular law.

[Neutraligon]

14th amendment equal protections clause.

This shit was apparently understood at some basic level one hundred and sixty years ago. Can you seriously not manage today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Specifically granted the denial of service against the LGBT community, in whatever manner, can be construed perfectly rationally as "abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States", by placing them below others, which is Tyranny By Majority bullshit.

Equal protection applies only to government, not private businesses.

And this law affects the government.

[Liriena]

Stop saying homophobia. There is no phobia.

Gallup, cut it. We've been through this. Fear and aversion towards homosexuals is a real thing. The term fits.

[Olthar]

14th amendment equal protections clause.

This shit was apparently understood at some basic level one hundred and sixty years ago. Can you seriously not manage today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Specifically granted the denial of service against the LGBT community, in whatever manner, can be construed perfectly rationally as "abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States", by placing them below others, which is Tyranny By Majority bullshit.

Equal protection applies only to government, not private businesses.

So businesses are above the law?

[Auralia]

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?

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...

[Threlizdun]

It has always been the business of the state to provide support to marriage.

I believe that an integral component of marriage is the bodily union achieved through sexual intercourse, which is only possible for opposite-sex couples who are not impotent. As such, a same-sex relationship can never constitute marriage.

Erm, same-sex couples are definitely capable of sexual intercourse. There's a lot of video evidence on the matter if you need to see for yourself.

[Imperializt Russia]

14th amendment equal protections clause.

This shit was apparently understood at some basic level one hundred and sixty years ago. Can you seriously not manage today?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Specifically granted the denial of service against the LGBT community, in whatever manner, can be construed perfectly rationally as "abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States", by placing them below others, which is Tyranny By Majority bullshit.

Equal protection applies only to government, not private businesses.

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.

[San]

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...

top kek

[Liriena]

Phobia is a fear.

Phobia is not just "fear", although we've already told you once that there are people who fear homosexuals. People who feel that giving homosexuals equal rights under the law will somehow harm them.

[Auralia]

So businesses are above the law?

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

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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...

So you don't actually know how you'd feel if you were gay.

[Neutraligon]

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...

Oh good, so you would not mind if every business in the area said we will not serve you due to your religion, or to your hair color or to your eye color. You would not mind if your children were denied such things simply because of traits you have.