U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kansas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-02-2012, 07:32 AM
 
2,861 posts, read 2,430,078 times
Reputation: 3188
This bill is open to so much interpretation. Of course sexual orientation wasn't mentioned. That would be too blatant. This is dog-whistle legislation. You don't have to say "gay" to mean "gay. And besides, employers would be able to discriminate against all sorts of people if this is enacted. They could fire or fail to hire someone who is cohabitating and unmarried, for example. This opens the door very wide and I believe it is an assault on the Civil Rights Act. We shall see.

 
Old 04-02-2012, 07:42 AM
 
29,990 posts, read 18,503,154 times
Reputation: 12311
Default Why do gays want to infringe upon the 1st Amendment and religious freedom?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TinaMcG View Post
Tenets -- not tenants. Anyway, gays and lesbians could be refused employment based on their sexual orientation. How is that not a violation of basic civil rights? It's bad enough that birth control is now becoming one of those things which assaults religious sensibilities. I'm sorry, but this legislature is careening us back to the 1950s. They want to create as many babies as they can...and then they deny services to help care for them.
Is there a reason little Ms. grammar Nazi chose to attack my usage before attacking the author of the article she linked? Is belittlement what you need to practice in order to feel superior? Anyone who doesn't agree with the GLBT agenda and allow the full on slaughter of the 1st Amedment in regard to religious freedoms wants the Dark Ages? Really? My how the hypocrisy flows!

No one has a civil right to be employed anywhere they wish just because they wish it.

I may want to be a flight surgeon in the US Navy but if I refuse to handle blood products, administer medications, or perform surgery because of my faith that would not fit the requirements of the career would it? You see the sword cuts both ways.

How is forcing a religious organization to hire and accept those with practices which are against its recognized religious laws and traditions not violating the basic civil and Constitutionally affirmed right of freedom of religion?

That the OP has specifically chosed to single out gays/lesbians as being possibly denied employment with them fully knowing they are leading lives with practices against those religious practices. The OP could have chosen to argue that a Muslim might be denied employment by a Baptist Bible School because he wants to convert Infidels to Islam or that a Catholic might be denied employment at a massadra because he/she is there to undermine Islamic teachings. Of course that would not fit the "gay agenda" now would it?

I know it is a foreign concept to some but character and walking the walk of the faith one supposedly represents is actually important, especially when working as a representative of that religious organization by accepting employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinaMcG View Post
This bill is open to so much interpretation. Of course sexual orientation wasn't mentioned. That would be too blatant. This is dog-whistle legislation. You don't have to say "gay" to mean "gay. And besides, employers would be able to discriminate against all sorts of people if this is enacted. They could fire or fail to hire someone who is cohabitating and unmarried, for example. This opens the door very wide and I believe it is an assault on the Civil Rights Act. We shall see.
The truth is that while the GBLT community and Progressive activists attempt to wrap themselves with the civil rights banner they have no problem violating the 1st Amendment religious freedoms of others.

Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 04-02-2012 at 07:51 AM..
 
Old 04-02-2012, 08:00 AM
 
3,756 posts, read 3,005,962 times
Reputation: 4943
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinaMcG View Post
Tenets -- not tenants. Anyway, gays and lesbians could be refused employment based on their sexual orientation. How is that not a violation of basic civil rights? It's bad enough that birth control is now becoming one of those things which assaults religious sensibilities. I'm sorry, but this legislature is careening us back to the 1950s. They want to create as many babies as they can...and then they deny services to help care for them.
So, your fear is that employees will be asked about the details of their sexual practices? I don't think that will be an issue. Do you announce that you are a heterosexual when you apply for a job? If you did, do you think they might eye you with suspicion that you thought that some how related to your getting the job. I wouldn't say it with a wink because you might get more than you bargained for with that! I can just see the face of the interviewer when you say "Well, I'm a heterosexual." But, now I see you are afraid that unmarried people or people living together won't be hired? Keep in mind that one is entitled to a "personal" life. You decide what of this "personal" life to share with a prospective employer or once employed with the employer or co-workers. Have you ever interviewed for or had a job? So, am I to understand that homosexuals and transsexuals usually bring this up at job interviews or when they are looking at housing? Perhaps that would make the interviewer or the person showing the housing uncomfortable under the "time and place for everything" rule, seriously, it just appears that homosexuals and transsexuals are obsessed about their sexuality.

And, birth control is available through mail order and so many other sources. You realize that many, many people get their prescriptions by mail order and other birth control methods also.

When it comes to abortion, terminating a fetus and fetus being defined as
"the unborn young of a mammal, especially a human being", seriously, a person should have a choice as to whether or not to a part of terminating "unborn young" especially when it is a human being. Check the dictionary for the term "fetus", I checked about 5 sources.

So, basically, what you want is for people to go against their conscious, their "choice" to accommodate the "choices" of others. Keep in mind that one makes a choice as to their actions unless force/duress or mental illness are involved.
 
Old 04-02-2012, 10:16 AM
 
Location: The Plains
5,794 posts, read 4,603,101 times
Reputation: 3972
Some religions forbid its followers from celebrating Christmas. Does the constitution give them the right to deny employment to people who celebrate Christmas? Some religions forbid its followers to eat pork or meat. Can your employer fire you for eating a ham sandwich on the premises. If a person who's religion forbids him from eating pork buys a McDonald's restaurant , can he sue the corporation for infringing on his constitutional rights if they force him to serve sausage?
The truth is that many people who don't celebrate Christmas make it possible for others to Celebrate the holiday. Many people who's religion fobids eating pork own franchise restaurants. The purpose of Religion is to guide personal behavior and the constitution gives us the right to conduct ourselves according to the doctrines of our religion. IMO "Americanisn as a Religion" has a far reaching purpose. Its doctrine is too guide public behavior and fuse religious doctrine and the courts of law.

Last edited by thriftylefty; 04-02-2012 at 10:37 AM..
 
Old 04-02-2012, 11:57 AM
Sco
 
4,261 posts, read 1,945,857 times
Reputation: 3266
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinaMcG View Post
This bill is open to so much interpretation. Of course sexual orientation wasn't mentioned. That would be too blatant. This is dog-whistle legislation. You don't have to say "gay" to mean "gay. And besides, employers would be able to discriminate against all sorts of people if this is enacted. They could fire or fail to hire someone who is cohabitating and unmarried, for example. This opens the door very wide and I believe it is an assault on the Civil Rights Act. We shall see.

The legislator that wrote the bill recently stated that it would be correct to interpret the law as allowing a landlord to refuse to rent to a same sex couple. It is impossible to deny that the intent of the law was to create a form of legal discrimination directed towards homosexuals. If the goal of the Kansas legislature and the religious nutjob Governor were to make Kansas look like a place full of bigotry and hatred they are doing a great job.

Last edited by Sco; 04-02-2012 at 12:05 PM..
 
Old 04-02-2012, 12:54 PM
 
3,756 posts, read 3,005,962 times
Reputation: 4943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco View Post
The legislator that wrote the bill recently stated that it would be correct to interpret the law as allowing a landlord to refuse to rent to a same sex couple. It is impossible to deny that the intent of the law was to create a form of legal discrimination directed towards homosexuals. If the goal of the Kansas legislature and the religious nutjob Governor were to make Kansas look like a place full of bigotry and hatred they are doing a great job.
Do you have a link to the article quoting the legislator? Also a lot of people of the same sex share apartments especially young people, often more than two and especially in college towns. And, no, it is not impossible to deny that the intent of the law was to create a form of legal discrimination directed toward homosexuals but to ensure the protections that were established long before the homosexual agenda hit the news again and again. Who would automatically assume two people of the same sex wanting to rent an apartment were homosexual? Would they be wearing t-shirts or hats announcing that? Or, worse yet, feeling one another up while talking to the landlord? If they were feeling up one another during the conversation, perhaps, the landlord would be put off by the behavior whether heterosexual or homosexual?
 
Old 04-02-2012, 04:08 PM
 
2,861 posts, read 2,430,078 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Is there a reason little Ms. grammar Nazi chose to attack my usage before attacking the author of the article she linked? Is belittlement what you need to practice in order to feel superior? Anyone who doesn't agree with the GLBT agenda and allow the full on slaughter of the 1st Amedment in regard to religious freedoms wants the Dark Ages? Really? My how the hypocrisy flows!

No one has a civil right to be employed anywhere they wish just because they wish it.

I may want to be a flight surgeon in the US Navy but if I refuse to handle blood products, administer medications, or perform surgery because of my faith that would not fit the requirements of the career would it? You see the sword cuts both ways.

How is forcing a religious organization to hire and accept those with practices which are against its recognized religious laws and traditions not violating the basic civil and Constitutionally affirmed right of freedom of religion?

That the OP has specifically chosed to single out gays/lesbians as being possibly denied employment with them fully knowing they are leading lives with practices against those religious practices. The OP could have chosen to argue that a Muslim might be denied employment by a Baptist Bible School because he wants to convert Infidels to Islam or that a Catholic might be denied employment at a massadra because he/she is there to undermine Islamic teachings. Of course that would not fit the "gay agenda" now would it?

I know it is a foreign concept to some but character and walking the walk of the faith one supposedly represents is actually important, especially when working as a representative of that religious organization by accepting employment.


The truth is that while the GBLT community and Progressive activists attempt to wrap themselves with the civil rights banner they have no problem violating the 1st Amendment religious freedoms of others.

Your argument doesn't hold much water. If you don't like to handle blood products, you are clearly not qualified for that job for solid reasons. If an employer judges a prospective employee not on his or her qualifications, but his or her lifestyle choices or conflicting religious or social beliefs, discounting that employee is a civil rights violation.

By the way, if I were a very religious fundamentalist publisher, I would not hire you as an editor because you don't know the difference between "tenants" and "tenets" and "massadra" and a "madrassa". If you did know the difference and were a whiz kid at editing but were gay, this law would allow me to reject you on the basis of my religious faith.

You say no one "has a civil right to be employed anywhere they wish just because they wish it." That isn't the point. People have a civil right to be fairly considered for a job based on their qualifications.
 
Old 04-02-2012, 04:09 PM
 
2,861 posts, read 2,430,078 times
Reputation: 3188
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
Some religions forbid its followers from celebrating Christmas. Does the constitution give them the right to deny employment to people who celebrate Christmas? Some religions forbid its followers to eat pork or meat. Can your employer fire you for eating a ham sandwich on the premises. If a person who's religion forbids him from eating pork buys a McDonald's restaurant , can he sue the corporation for infringing on his constitutional rights if they force him to serve sausage?
The truth is that many people who don't celebrate Christmas make it possible for others to Celebrate the holiday. Many people who's religion fobids eating pork own franchise restaurants. The purpose of Religion is to guide personal behavior and the constitution gives us the right to conduct ourselves according to the doctrines of our religion. IMO "Americanisn as a Religion" has a far reaching purpose. Its doctrine is too guide public behavior and fuse religious doctrine and the courts of law.
Amen, Lefty.
 
Old 04-04-2012, 09:31 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
9,869 posts, read 11,191,876 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
So, your fear is that employees will be asked about the details of their sexual practices? I don't think that will be an issue. Do you announce that you are a heterosexual when you apply for a job? If you did, do you think they might eye you with suspicion that you thought that some how related to your getting the job. I wouldn't say it with a wink because you might get more than you bargained for with that! I can just see the face of the interviewer when you say "Well, I'm a heterosexual." But, now I see you are afraid that unmarried people or people living together won't be hired? Keep in mind that one is entitled to a "personal" life. You decide what of this "personal" life to share with a prospective employer or once employed with the employer or co-workers. Have you ever interviewed for or had a job? So, am I to understand that homosexuals and transsexuals usually bring this up at job interviews or when they are looking at housing? Perhaps that would make the interviewer or the person showing the housing uncomfortable under the "time and place for everything" rule, seriously, it just appears that homosexuals and transsexuals are obsessed about their sexuality.

And, birth control is available through mail order and so many other sources. You realize that many, many people get their prescriptions by mail order and other birth control methods also.

When it comes to abortion, terminating a fetus and fetus being defined as
"the unborn young of a mammal, especially a human being", seriously, a person should have a choice as to whether or not to a part of terminating "unborn young" especially when it is a human being. Check the dictionary for the term "fetus", I checked about 5 sources.

So, basically, what you want is for people to go against their conscious, their "choice" to accommodate the "choices" of others. Keep in mind that one makes a choice as to their actions unless force/duress or mental illness are involved.
I have never brought up my sexual orientation in an interview. HOWEVER, once on the job, YOU expect gay people to keep quiet about their personal lives and live a "double life" in the workplace so you don't have to feel disgusted/grossed out by knowing a gay person is in your office.

Everyone knows who is heterosexual in the workplace. Heterosexuals mention/discuss their children, spouses, boyfriends/girlfriends, post pictures of their children, etc. I am gay, and yes, everyone in my office knows I'm gay. Not because I discuss my sex life, but because I have a picture of my children on my desk, and I discuss what my children are up to with workplace friends. Which of course initially led to coworkers asking about my "wife". I don't live in fear (as you would prefer me to) and let my coworkers know that I don't have a wife, but a partner of 15 years, and that we had our children via surrogacy. And I'm lucky to live in a progressive city and work at an open company where the culture is accepting of me and my family. So when you boil it all down to "gay people want to shove their sex lives in my face", all you're doing is showing bigotry. I have the right to go to work, discuss what my partner and I did with our children, and not get fired for that. My employer isn't a religious organization. If someone up my chain of command is a member of a church that thinks gay people are hell-bound demons, it should not affect my chances at remaining employed.

But anywho... this just reminds me why I left Kansas and will never return.
 
Old 04-04-2012, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
9,869 posts, read 11,191,876 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse View Post
Do you have a link to the article quoting the legislator? Also a lot of people of the same sex share apartments especially young people, often more than two and especially in college towns. And, no, it is not impossible to deny that the intent of the law was to create a form of legal discrimination directed toward homosexuals but to ensure the protections that were established long before the homosexual agenda hit the news again and again. Who would automatically assume two people of the same sex wanting to rent an apartment were homosexual? Would they be wearing t-shirts or hats announcing that? Or, worse yet, feeling one another up while talking to the landlord? If they were feeling up one another during the conversation, perhaps, the landlord would be put off by the behavior whether heterosexual or homosexual?
Again, it seems to be your preference that gay couples live in fear, or "in the closet". If a gay couple goes to rent an apartment, they're not any more likely to "feel each other up" than a straight couple. But we all know that you can often/usually tell if two men or women are gay. Or what if the landlord couldn't tell, but later had to come into the apartment to fix something and noticed there was only one bed? Or if the couple asked to rent a one bedroom apartment? Then he could kick them out under this law? Or would the landlord be able to say to them during the leasing process that "I'm Christian and don't allow gays to rent here"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kansas

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top