Kansas tries to go Jim Crow on LGBT Couples

[Greed and Death]

Why would the bill be unconstitutional?

14th amendment equal protections clause.

the degree of protection depends on how the discrimination is occurring.

For instance taxing the rich at a different rate than the poor, is perfectly fine.

[New Frenco Empire]

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...

I highly doubt you would feel that way. Highly doubt it. Oppression isn't fun.

[Olthar]

So businesses are above the law?

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

Then business can't violate the Amendments.

[Neutraligon]

So businesses are above the law?

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

You are ignoring the part where this affects public employees.

[San]

due to your religion

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

[Threlizdun]

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...

Yes, you are not gay and have no idea what it feels like to be told that your love is invalid, you are a terrible person, you are ruining society, and that you are going to hell. You haven't had to live your life in fear that friends and family will leave you if they find out, or that worse yet you could be beaten, raped, or killed for what you are. Yes, you have no fucking idea what it's like.

[Neutraligon]

due to your religion

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

I always find that the ironic part of the it's a choice argument.

[Ifreann]

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.

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.

---

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.

Consider yourself corrected.

[Threlizdun]

So businesses are above the law?

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

Then you are wrong.

[Auralia]

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.

[Auralia]

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

Then you are wrong.

I've already explained how the Fourteenth Amendment regulates the conduct of the state, not private businesses. This is fairly well known and understood.

[Auralia]

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?

[Neutraligon]

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.

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

[Auralia]

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.

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]

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.

What I said:

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

What the text of the Fourteenth Amendment says, verbatim:

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

As I said earlier, if they didn't want to look like massive bastards, they could have just made the effort of repealing whatever anti-discrimination laws were on the books, and said "it's up to the free market to deny business how they see fit". Then they could have let the state's shopkeepers entertain whatever racist, sexist or homophobic fantasies they have at will.

But no. They targeted LGBT.
Why?

[Neutraligon]

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.

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

The civil rights act affects private business.

[Auralia]

snip

Okay, this is from the CRS annotated constitution:

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

It's pretty clear that this bill does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, at least as it relates to private individuals.

[Ifreann]

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?

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

[Auralia]

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.

[Neutraligon]

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.

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

[Auralia]

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.

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]

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.

Considering bills can and often are named things unrelated to some of the content, not really.

[Auralia]

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.

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]

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.

And legally intercourse is not required by law. Hence again they are legally equivalent. Oh, there is also the fact that they can enter into a bodily union through sexual intercourse.

[Auralia]

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

The Supreme Court doesn't strike down entire legislation when only one provision is unconstitutional.

The civil rights act affects private business.

True, but sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Civil Rights Act.