Posted on 02/18/2014 8:05:47 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Conservatives keep trying to use America's religious freedom as a way to limit everyone else's rights.
Last week, the Kansas House of Representatives passed a bill (pdf) that would have broadly legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians. Luckily, after national outrage, the bill was halted. But the fight isn't over: the bill's reliance on religious freedom to justify discrimination is a sign of right-wing efforts to come.
The bill's scope was impressive in its expansiveness: Kansans would have been able to legally refuse to provide just about any service to anyone whose relationship they dislike for religious reasons, and could have refused to provide services "related to" any relationship they dislike for religious reasons. The bill specifically enumerated adoption, foster care, counseling, social services, employment and employment benefits, as well as the general categories of "services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges", as permissible areas for discrimination.
In other words, under the bill, any individual Kansan could have hung a "No Gays, No Lesbians, No Dogs" sign on the door of his restaurant. Any individual Kansan could have refused to hire someone, serve someone a drink, rent someone an apartment, sell someone a pair of pants or accommodate someone at a hotel if that someone is gay. Any employer could even have refused to extend insurance coverage to a gay employee's husband or wife if he thinks same-sex marriage is wrong. Even government employees paid with everyone's tax dollars would have had carte blanche to discriminate – social workers don't have to work with gay couples, police officers don't have to come to the assistance of a gay person in need....
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
I am amazed at the number of people who do not understand the difference between refusing to celebrate an anti-religious event and serving people who you might find personally objectionable.
If you work in a field that can be used to further the homosexual agenda (like a baker who makes wedding cakes), you are currently REQUIRED to surrender your right to free exercise of religion, should a homosexual request you to serve their agenda.
I was trying to get through the comments on the website. Gave up. The vitriol towards Biblical Christians is astounding. The Devil knows his time is short, and he’s not happy about it at all.
***n other words, under the bill, any individual Kansan could have hung a “No Gays, No Lesbians, No Dogs” sign on the door of his restaurant. Any individual Kansan could have refused to hire someone, serve someone a drink, rent someone an apartment, sell someone a pair of pants or accommodate someone at a hotel if that someone is gay.***
I thought Jill Filipovic was going to give us some bad news.
God needs His warriors here on earth , active , now
Overreaction much.
The Bill’s supporters need to run ads featuring the businesses punished for practicing their Faith by gays who claim their “marriage” won’t impact heterosexuals.
Which is why the FedGov doesn't want you to have it.
No. Religion, race, sex and national origin are protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Sexual orientation is not protected under federal law, but is under the laws of some states.)
It’s hard to single out a starting point to critique that article.
To begin with, Christians need to remember not to be a stumbling block (are you listening Wesborough Baptist Church?) for people who are struggling with homosexuality and/or being bullied by pro-gay activists and would be receptive to the good news of Jesus. This is evidenced by 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 which indicates that certain members of that church had formerly been involved in same-sex sexual relationships, but had evidently repented and accepted God’s grace to turn their lives around.
Regarding the article referenced in the OP, take Christian cake-makers for example. Wouldn’t competing, non-Christian bakeries appreciate their competitive edge concerning their willingness to make cakes for anybody who patronized their business?
Also, one state shouldn’t care what businesses in another state are doing as long as everybody respects everybody else’s constitutionally enumerated rights.
Also, how was the so-called national rage determined? Or is that just a pro-gay media fabrication to give gays a safty in numbers feeling?
As mentioned in related threads, the states have never amended the Constitution to protect so-called gay rights. So the states are free to make laws which discriminate against the gay agenda, as long as such laws don’t also unreasonably abridge constitutionally enumerated rights.
ALL “anti-discrimination” laws are unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination when applied to private businesses or individuals, because the law must subjugate one party’s views under the other. The ONLY option is for the government to stay completely out of it, letting people run their businesses into which they’ve invested their own fortunes, time and massive efforts, all at the great risk of unknown success or failure.
Clearly, Jill Filipovic is a perfect example of the fact that when enough people cover themselves in horse sh*t, the whole planet begins to praise sh*t.
Except of course, the civil rights mandates on private businesses from 1964 have withstood all constitutional challenges.
Of course the vast majority of people have no issues with government saying you cannot discriminate in a business on the basis of RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, RELIGION, GENDER, or DISABILITY (since the ‘90s). But of course piggybacking the FAKE category of “sexual orientation” (since when does a chosen sexual behavior make you a minority?) onto that laundry list is extremely easy for the courts to do, even though, by default....it automatically discriminates against people of religion.
“Can businesses hang a “No Christians” sign on the door?”
I would certainly hope so, since it’s called freedom of association or just plain freedom. The Supreme Court likely disagrees, but they don’t exactly have a very good record of protecting constitutional rights beyond abortion (which isn’t really a constitutional right in the first place, but they claim it is and act as though it’s the SUPREME right).
BTW, I’m a Christian, and I have no problem with anti-Christian bigots who don’t want my business. I’ll simply take that business elsewhere. That’s what people do in a free country. Liberty gets messy of course. Some people might even get offended, but freedom is worth a bit of offense from time to time.
Also, the constitution was written to restrain GOVERNMENT, not private citizens; therefore, the government is absolutely prohibited from showing favoritism or discriminating against anyone on the basis of constitutionally protected differences like race, sex, or religion.
Those prohibitions were never intended to apply to private citizens conducting business on their own property of course. Your rights do not give you the right to force me to associate with you on my property.
You’re absolutely right. Your 2nd Amendment rights do not give you the right to carry weapons on other people’s private property, although private citizens have limited ability to enforce a gun ban beyond maybe asking you to leave.
The constitution was written to restrain government, not We the People. The 2nd Amendment applies to government in that it—the government—cannot infringe on our right to bear weapons. The thought of gun restrictions on private property was probably never even contemplated at the time as that has nothing to do with a restriction meant for the federal government.
The constitution was clearly and wisely written to put the federal government in a straight jacket of enumerated powers. It wasn’t meant to restrain We the People, because our rights are God-given, i.e. greater than the government’s.
You make some excellent points. If homosexuals want to be a constitutionally protected class, all they have to do is pass a constitutional amendment. They are trying to go around that of course by claiming equal treatment under the laws. Why? Because they don’t have anywhere near enough supporters to pass a constitutional amendment. Nevertheless, that’s how it’s done in a nation of laws.
BTW, if they choose to subvert the law and constitution like they’re currently doing by getting judges to overturn laws like super legislators, then the homosexualists deserve as much derision and push back as we can give. Barbarians don’t deserve any respect, and that’s exactly what they are.
No. Only government is allowed to do that.
A business couldn’t legally ban Christians, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is clearly unconstitutional. The government can’t amend the constitution via law, and those class protections restrain government, not citizens. The 14th Amendment extended those protections to states (state governments), but again, nowhere in the constitution does it say I can’t discriminate on the basis of sex, race, or religion so long as I’m not acting in government capacity, like an official.
If I’m wrong, please point me to the area of the constitution that limits my right to associate or not associate with whoever I want.
Just because most Americans agree with the Civil Right Act, it doesn’t mean the act is constitutional. I fully understand that’s where we stand today, but the Supreme Court has rewritten the constitution in virtually every area. That doesn’t make it right, but it is the way things are done these days.
I should add that whenever the Supreme Court tries to act as a super legislature, it simply creates further malfeasance and chaos. If, on the other hand, it stuck with strictly interpreting the law, then we could still join together on issues that have overwhelming public support (like the right of government to force you to do business with people you don’t want) and amend the constitution.
An amendment isn’t easy of course, but it practically guarantees broad support for whatever is passed. It also eliminates a lack of respect for law and continual conflict created by courts who make up the law as they go.
Kansas’ anti-gay bill: another attempt to resist warped progressive ideology from being forced on the moral majority.
Is it an inability to understand or a refusal?
If the law passed? Yes. Unless they write it to only protect Christian Kansas.
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.