Posted on 02/13/2014 6:31:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
State pride is a good thing. Y'all seem to be learning a lot from us Texans :-)
why not do themselves a favor, a favor that will be harder for the courts to pick as an effort of attempting a single and specific “discrimination”
and broaden the ability to not provide service to ANYONE other than denial of service to a person among the classes of persons designated in the post-civil war amendments -
in other words, broaden the exceptions for which service could be denied legally, to any condition other than “race” (and I’d say race or religion), any condition that does not meet a moral or ethic standard held by the person who would otherwise be supplying the service
for some individuals that might include “same sex” couples, and for someone else it might include folks dressed in “goth” get ups, and for someone else - you get my idea
I sure wouldn’t. And the only reason these people do this sort of thing is to promote their agenda.
My guess is the SCOTUS will overturn that decision and the gays will be celebrating once again. This whole damn country has gone off balance including the SCOTUS.
Yep ... that’s usually how these things play out.
Count on more of this.
I’m sure you’ve seen the pattern, as Rush pointed out from Evan Sayet’s “Regurgitating the Apple”:
The Modern Liberal will invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success.
If the same set of rules were applied to those that did not believe Jesus is Lord, would you support their being denied entrance into a business or for some of the other conditions set here?
Curious to know people’s feelings on this.
Are you asking if business should be allowed to specify “No Jews, No Hindus, No Muslims”?
If so, I’m actually inclined to say “Yes, they should”.
However, given the fact that people generally need to sleep every day and eat several times a day, I’m not going to be fanatical about enforcing that concept.
Buying a wedding cake (or hiring a photographer), on the other hand, is generally done infrequently and with a long lead-time, and plenty of opportunity to shop around for alternate suppliers if the first one you try doesn’t wish to provide the service you’re looking for.
Using the brute-force of government to mandate someone to participate in an activity they find abhorrent for religious reasons is a clear violation of the “...nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Would you support a law requiring all restaurants to maintain a kosher/halal kitchen so that devout Jews or Muslims could eat there?
Businesses should absolutely not be able to refuse service based on religion or skin color or because someone is homosexual. They should be and are allowed to refuse service based on behaviors, but not identities.
Should a baker or a florist or a photographer be free to refuse service to one or more homosexuals engaging in the behavior of pretending to be “getting married”?
I think it is a very tough question from a legal standpoint. Should a Jew be able to deny service at a restaurant to a Christian? Should a Protestant be able to refuse service to a Catholic?
In my opinion, anyone should be able to deny service to anyone.
That said, I can understand the position of those who say anyone in the food/lodging must equally serve all who walk through the door; people, as a general rule, have to sleep every day and eat several times a day.
This does not apply to services such as photography, cakes, flowers, and the like for homosexual pretend-weddings. If one provider doesn’t wish to serve them, there is plenty of time to look for alternatives.
How would you write the law to apply to your rules?
Any business licensed as a restaurant or lodging facility is required to provide their services to all paying customers, subject to capacity constraints.
All others are free to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
Is this a federal or state law?
Jurisdiction is irrelevant.
That’s what the law would be “If I were Emperor of the World”.
Good luck on becoming emperor of the world.
I have no expectation of becoming so.
You asked me my opinion of allowable bounds of the “right to refuse service”, I told you.
Thanks for the good news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.