It’s a private business, you commie Guardianistas.
Kansans, you should pressure your legislature to MOVE THESE PROTECTIONS FORWARD!
Why do the liberals decry efforts to “force” what they call a warped view of Christianity on others, while they are forcing homosexual marriage and other aspects of the “gay” agenda on all of us through the courts?
So, are you only forcing something on others if you are coming from a conservative or religious point of view, but forcing a liberal view is not officially being forced on people??? What am I missing???
“under the bill, any individual Kansan could have hung a “No Gays, No Lesbians, No Dogs”
keep the dogs, the rest of the animals however..
So in other words, only religious people should be discriminated against, but not gays. sheesh.
The Guardian... don’t they have a queen’s ass to kiss? “Royalty”... what’s wrong with these people?
If people are behaving themselves, how would a service provider know if people are straight, gay, or whatever? Why would they turn away business? Another niche for obtrusive government?
Even if fairly gun friendly states like Arizona a private business or private home may ban firearms even if the gun owner has a permit.
It would seem if a business can suspend the second amendment right, which is quite clearly spelled out, they should be able to ban make believe rights as well.
I’m looking for an “article” where Little Jilly addresses that “warped” Islam.
freedom of association does not require any religion
The only people forcing anything on anyone are gays. If a business owner turns them down as a result of conflict of conscience, Gays can always go elsewhere. There are plenty of people who put money first who are happy to serve gays. Why should gays be allowed to force their immorality on people who want nothing to do with it? Let gays start their own cake and wedding businesses, catering to gay couples, and let them refuse to serve whomever they please. If culturally ignorant leftists want to celebrate their unity with gays, let them use gay services. Christians don’t care.
They know it's total BS.
Their goal is to establish a meme within the ignorant and stupid...which they cultivate into a cultural norm...and VOTES.
They are about as low as humans get.
It's just like firing someone in the modern era. You NEVER tell them they are fired "for cause" and you NEVER give them a reason why you're letting them go, except their job has been eliminated.
If somebody doesn't want to serve homo's, they just should not say it's because they're homo.
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.
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.
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.