Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (Kansas City, Lawrence: crimes, weddings, high school)

[itsMeFred]

Um no... its nothing like wearing scarves. Its just something you KNOW.
But, unless they've said something first, good manners dictate you not say anything one way or the other.

I'm thinking you're not really understanding what we're talking about here, actually...

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by itsMeFred

Um no... its nothing like wearing scarves. Its just something you KNOW.
But, unless they've said something first, good manners dictate you not say anything one way or the other.

I'm thinking you're not really understanding what we're talking about here, actually...

Look, we can all pick up on subtle cues and suspect somebody may be gay, but unless you're God or some other sort of all-knowing being, I wouldn't be too confident in your "gaydar". It's flawed. Even if you can pick up subtle cues that lead you to believe somebody is likely gay and you're very accurate, just think about how many gay people are out there that didn't set your gaydar off. There are a lot of folks out there who are gay but simply don't put out any vibe or signs. That's sort of the flipside of mistaking people who are gay when they're not, which is damaging, but either way I can tell you that your gaydar is flawed. You don't have it all figured out. If you think I don't understand something, explain. Can you explain at all how your gaydar works and how you know somebody is gay? Are you ever unsure and iffy, or are you always certain?

[itsMeFred]

There's no way to explain it. Much like when people dress androgenously, but you still know their gender. So far as harm for being wrong, I guess I haven't the foggiest clue what harm would come of being mistaken... well, unless someone is a gossip or something, I guess.
Personally, I generally don't talk about it to people. Its rarely relevant...

[Clark Park]

Here are my questions:

1. Do any other states in the US have this kind of legislation? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

2. If the state has functioned for so many years and decades without this legislation, what is the immediate and urgent need for it? Obviously legislators ought to be addressing urgent issues involving the economy, crime, education, etc., so what is the compelling reason to push this through?

3. If passed, will this legislation be challenged in the courts? Is there a possibility it will be overturned in the courts?

Just asking.

[MOKAN]

Originally Posted by Clark Park

Here are my questions:

1. Do any other states in the US have this kind of legislation? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

2. If the state has functioned for so many years and decades without this legislation, what is the immediate and urgent need for it? Obviously legislators ought to be addressing urgent issues involving the economy, crime, education, etc., so what is the compelling reason to push this through?

3. If passed, will this legislation be challenged in the courts? Is there a possibility it will be overturned in the courts?

Just asking.

I believe the answer to your 2nd question is that Kansas feels religion (Christianity) is under attack politically, by the Obama admin and progressives in general. It seems like some folks also want to give private entities more ability to do as they wish without being hindered by anti-discrimination laws, so as to not have to go against their own beliefs and to sort of have the ability to "vote" for what type of people they approve of by who they hire rather than have the government decide their standards for them.

Your 3rd question crossed my mind as well. I would imagine if it passes and becomes law in the Kansas Legislature, it will be challenged in the higher courts.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

I believe the answer to your 2nd question is that Kansas feels religion (Christianity) is under attack politically, by the Obama admin and progressives in general. It seems like some folks also want to give private entities more ability to do as they wish without being hindered by anti-discrimination laws, so as to not have to go against their own beliefs and to sort of have the ability to "vote" for what type of people they approve of by who they hire rather than have the government decide their standards for them.

Your 3rd question crossed my mind as well. I would imagine if it passes and becomes law in the Kansas Legislature, it will be challenged in the higher courts.

No, Kansas has far better things to worry about than anything related to this, or implying a discriminatory stance as indicated by the OP. The state will never be attractive for new business growth outside of the Lawrence/KC corridor. Why would anyone move to Kansas when the state continues to give itself a black eye time and time again?

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by TinaMcG

I am sickened by this:
Kansas House Green Lights Anti-Gay Bill :: EDGE on the Net

This legislation would make it legal for Kansas employers to discriminate against the LGBT community. It has passed the Kansas House, easily one of the most backward and bigoted group of legislators in America.

When we moved to Kansas, my husband and I were struck by the acceptance of gays and lesbians in our area. I guess once you get outside the KC Metro bubble, that changes, eh? He works with two women who were recently married in Iowa. No problem at work. Everyone celebrated with them. But if my husband's company were of a "super religious" mindset, they would soon be able to fire both women on the basis of their own religious beliefs.

I don't see this as anything to do with religious freedom. People are free to believe and worship as they see fit. But according to the tenets of Christianity, they are not permitted to judge, discriminate and hate. Who would Jesus discriminate against? My guess would be no one.

RELIGIOUS organizations should not be forced to hire gays/lesbians if its against the beliefs of their organization. Secular companies though should not be able to discriminate against employees for being gay, and in more than half the states this is still legal. I am totally for a national non-discrimination law as long as it exempts religious organizations.

[CrownVic95]

Kansas is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

The act should be named the Kansas Preservation of Freedom Act, with religious references removed, as all of us are entitled to think our own thoughts and judge behavior as our fundamental sensibilities guide us. Those who practice an organized religion have no more or less right to Freedom.

This country will continue it's downward slide, greased with the grossly misguided priorities of the last several decades, until we as a nation wake up and take back our individual rights - the most important, by far, of which is the freedom to think our own thoughts and make our own value judgements.

In the absence of that, we wander aimlessly in a national trance, wondering how much tighter the Progressive powers that be will cinch our straight jackets tomorrow.

[thriftylefty]

Seems some years ago in Wichita there was a bit of an uproar with Some people Slaughtering animals in their back yard. ( within the City Limits) I thought this was done in adherence to their religious practise. I had personal friends in Kansas who were keeping animals for slaughter in their rental house basements. I don't remember any Christians standing up for their religious freedoms. The law was the law, no killing goats and chickens in your basement to eat. Today there are places were Islamic people can go to slaughter animals in accordance to their religion , but it was them who made the accommodation to our laws not our laws accommodating them.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by MOKAN

I believe the answer to your 2nd question is that Kansas feels religion (Christianity) is under attack politically, by the Obama admin and progressives in general. It seems like some folks also want to give private entities more ability to do as they wish without being hindered by anti-discrimination laws, so as to not have to go against their own beliefs and to sort of have the ability to "vote" for what type of people they approve of by who they hire rather than have the government decide their standards for them.

Your 3rd question crossed my mind as well. I would imagine if it passes and becomes law in the Kansas Legislature, it will be challenged in the higher courts.

Isn't this similar to what Colorado passed back in the early '90s? And that law was tossed out by the Supreme Court, I believe.