Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act (Kansas City, Lawrence: rent, homes, look for a job)

[AnywhereElse]

Originally Posted by denverian

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"?

How do you tell by looking at an individual or two individuals of the same sex that they are homosexual or not? That is interesting then if possible because homosexuals sometimes approach heterosexuals to pick them up. Don't say this doesn't happen, I was in military! Seriously, are they trying to convert them. Oops, forgot not a choice. You cannot tell by looking at a couple whether they are friends or lovers unless they tell you or act in a way that seals the deal. So, homosexuals are afraid the landlord will come in and see one bed and evict them? Seriously, this is inline with that story about the homosexual teen who wore a shirt to school to the effect that Jesus was not a homophobe. Now, if I wore mine bearing Levitus 18:22...................You only need to be able to spell one word to describe what is going on "a-g-e-n-d-a". A "special" group is looking for "special" consideration and to trample all over the rights of others. Seriously, too, it would not be out of line for two adults of the same or opposite sex to share one larger bed. Boy, talk about judging the book by its cover! To most, they don't spend their time obsessed with their sexuality and what other people are thinking about it.

[itsMeFred]

How do you tell by looking at an individual or two individuals of the same sex that they are homosexual or not?

You can't? I've honestly never understood this.
How do people not immediately know if someone is gay or straight? That's like saying you can't tell if someone is a man or a woman...

denverian is correct on all accounts.
Even assuming someone doesn't have functioning gaydar, as soon as a gay person dares to discuss their relationship, family etc, (just like everyone else, btw) they'll immediately "out" themselves. So far as couples together, you're saying that a gay couple shouldn't hold hands or give a good-bye smooch or what-have-you in view of others (again, just like anyone else) because that'll "out" them, too.

This has nothing to do with agendas or being focused on sexuality. It's the notion that they're not allowed to be plain, ordinary people.

[Sco]

Originally Posted by AnywhereElse

How do you tell by looking at an individual or two individuals of the same sex that they are homosexual or not? That is interesting then if possible because homosexuals sometimes approach heterosexuals to pick them up. Don't say this doesn't happen, I was in military! Seriously, are they trying to convert them. Oops, forgot not a choice. You cannot tell by looking at a couple whether they are friends or lovers unless they tell you or act in a way that seals the deal. So, homosexuals are afraid the landlord will come in and see one bed and evict them? Seriously, this is inline with that story about the homosexual teen who wore a shirt to school to the effect that Jesus was not a homophobe. Now, if I wore mine bearing Levitus 18:22...................You only need to be able to spell one word to describe what is going on "a-g-e-n-d-a". A "special" group is looking for "special" consideration and to trample all over the rights of others. Seriously, too, it would not be out of line for two adults of the same or opposite sex to share one larger bed. Boy, talk about judging the book by its cover! To most, they don't spend their time obsessed with their sexuality and what other people are thinking about it.

You seem to want to keep hammering the point that it is impossible to tell if someone is gay or not. That is just a waste of everyone's time.

The real issue is do you think that if an employer or landlord becomes aware that someone is homosexual by whatever means that they should receive legal protection against repercussions if they decide to fire and/or evict them based on that newly discovered fact?

[AnywhereElse]

Originally Posted by Sco

You seem to want to keep hammering the point that it is impossible to tell if someone is gay or not. That is just a waste of everyone's time.

The real issue is do you think that if an employer or landlord becomes aware that someone is homosexual by whatever means that they should receive legal protection against repercussions if they decide to fire and/or evict them based on that newly discovered fact?

No, the real issue is preservation of religious freedom, thus the name of the act. Are you aware of the law they passed in Manhattan about a year ago?http://awakenmanhattan.com/videos/pl...ect-the-family) ( I think it falls more along those lines. The law never was enacted because they kicked some of the commissioners to the curb and repealed it before it took effect.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove discrimination of any kind? I am thinking that you do not. The homosexual population is much smaller than what you think. Are they having trouble with this now? I don't see the problem with landlords being realistic except maybe in a few cases and proving it like with any other type of discrimination against a member of a protected group is almost impossible.

It also depends on how they discover the fact. My son was at a day center for people with developmental disabilities and I cannot give you a unbiased opinion on this because of the sick things that were happening there. Also, I was in the barracks where a young girl was raped in our day room by the group of lesbians that lived there. If they are looking for protection and me to give it to them and they hold their breath...........I believe it should still be considered a mental health disorder (http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html) and I feel that would be helpful since so many have adjustment problems and perhaps under some sort of "disability" they could be covered but with a watchful stance. You have to get real and do the research, it goes beyond "sin" beyond "skin color", beyond "age"................

[Sco]

Originally Posted by AnywhereElse

No, the real issue is preservation of religious freedom, thus the name of the act. Are you aware of the law they passed in Manhattan about a year ago? I think it falls more along those lines. The law never was enacted because they kicked some of the commissioners to the curb and repealed it before it took effect.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove discrimination of any kind? I am thinking that you do not. The homosexual population is much smaller than what you think. Are they having trouble with this now? I don't see the problem with landlords being realistic except maybe in a few cases and proving it like with any other type of discrimination against a member of a protected group is almost impossible.

It also depends on how they discover the fact. My son was at a day center for people with developmental disabilities and I cannot give you a unbiased opinion on this because of the sick things that were happening there. Also, I was in the barracks where a young girl was raped in our day room by the group of lesbians that lived there. If they are looking for protection and me to give it to them and they hold their breath...........I believe it should still be considered a mental health disorder and I feel that would be helpful since so many have adjustment problems and perhaps under some sort of "disability" they could be covered but with a watchful stance. And, the agenda kept them on the job!!!

You used a lot of words to avoid answering a very simple question.

Do you believe that an employer and/or landlord should be able to not hire/fire/evict someone because they are gay?

[AnywhereElse]

Will a homosexual teacher feel comfortable teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a sin? And, in the bookstore, will a homosexual employee be comfortable selling books that promote ideas from the Bible which include that homosexuality is a sin? Or, will they complain that this is against their belief system and that they should not have to teach beliefs that they are not comfortable with? I do where it is going.

[AnywhereElse]

Originally Posted by Sco

You used a lot of words to avoid answering a very simple question.

Do you believe that an employer and/or landlord should be able to not hire/fire/evict someone because they are gay?

It depends on the circumstances. If I have a school that is of a religious nature that believes that homosexuality is sin and that it leads to a life of eternal damnation and that marriage is between one man and one woman, I don't feel that a homosexual would be a good fit because I believe they would not be comfortable. I am betting it would take no time before they were crying it was not fair for them to be made to teach against what they believed was right, of course, heterosexuals should be teaching that two mommies and two daddies are "normal" even when they do not believe that.

In a landlord situation, maybe also if the over riding theme was religion such as in a Christian group home or home for the elderly. I would try, as in any other situation to get the best fit for the position and would expect that anyone else would also. I would prefer not to have a car in the parking lot with a gay pride flag flying from it nor an employee wearing a t-shirt depicting facets of the homosexual lifestyle.

You know, having been on city-data for awhile I am sick to death of the whining. I have a child with special needs so you don't need to tell me how unfair you think life.

[itsMeFred]

Will a homosexual teacher feel comfortable teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is a sin?

I've been in the classroom since 1996 and have never once had to "teach" this, one way or the other...

[TinaMcG]

Originally Posted by itsMeFred

You can't? I've honestly never understood this.
How do people not immediately know if someone is gay or straight? That's like saying you can't tell if someone is a man or a woman...

denverian is correct on all accounts.
Even assuming someone doesn't have functioning gaydar, as soon as a gay person dares to discuss their relationship, family etc, (just like everyone else, btw) they'll immediately "out" themselves. So far as couples together, you're saying that a gay couple shouldn't hold hands or give a good-bye smooch or what-have-you in view of others (again, just like anyone else) because that'll "out" them, too.

This has nothing to do with agendas or being focused on sexuality. It's the notion that they're not allowed to be plain, ordinary people.

I have really good gaydar, probably from having gay friends as far back as the early 1970s, but it isn't always easy to tell. I don't think it matters though, because I couldn't care less who people are attracted to.

I hate to see a new brand of "don't ask, don't tell" in the workplace. I have a friend who was a work colleague back in the early 1990s, and she was clearly gay, very masculine. But she kept up a ruse, talking about boyfriends which we were never allowed to meet, and talking about girlie things. Then she moved to Hawaii, and we connected on Facebook a couple years ago. She was out, and she was proud, and I told her it wouldn't have made any difference to her co-workers back then. She said it was so stressful her to feel like she had to lie about who she was.

[TinaMcG]

Originally Posted by itsMeFred

I've been in the classroom since 1996 and have never once had to "teach" this, one way or the other...

Yeah, really. But then, thismight be the kind of thing you'd expect to be taught in Kansas schools...