Kansas bill on same sex services

[FaxModem1]

CNN

Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
By Ben Brumfield and Dana Ford, CNN
updated 7:59 AM EST, Thu February 13, 2014
Watch this video
DOJ extends recognition of gay marriage
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Gay and lesbian couples in Kansas may be refused service more often
A bill protects individuals, groups and organizations that turn them away for religious reasons
It "seeks to enshrine discrimination," rights group leader says
If one employee refuses to serve, the employer must ask others to

(CNN) -- 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.

The politics

The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.

"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.

"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."

Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.

Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.

Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.

"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity," he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.

The details

HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.

It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."

Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.

There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.

If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.

It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.

The trend

The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.

Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.

Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.

Remember, religious freedom is the most important thing, and if not, the free market will correct this.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No. This shit is so blatantly unconstitutional it is not even funny. If they wanted to nullify the Civil Rights Act, they could *theoretically* do that. It would be struck down thanks to the Supremacy clause, but they could make a case.

This? You cannot single out a suspect class for discrimination. "Oh, our anti-discrimination laws apply to everyone. Except These People."

[Borgholio]

Kansas. Enough said.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Yeah, this strikes me as a desperate grasp at best. This law will get demolished in pretty short order, I think. It's got nothing to stand on.

[Pelranius]

Looking at the silver lining, at least the time wasted on this can't be used to pull off more Constitutionally grounded shit.

[Scrib]

I have a question: why can't businesses discriminate? I mean, the pragmatic argument is clear but what is the legal basis? Is it say, for the same reason that the government can regulate the airwaves and media?

[General Zod]

I have a question: why can't businesses discriminate? I mean, the pragmatic argument is clear but what is the legal basis? Is it say, for the same reason that the government can regulate the airwaves and media?

What sort of legal basis are you looking for? It boils down to equal protection and the idea that if a white, god-fearing heterosexual male is capable of legally doing something, so should everyone else who isn't necessarily a white, god-fearing heterosexual male.

[Flagg]

I have a question: why can't businesses discriminate? I mean, the pragmatic argument is clear but what is the legal basis? Is it say, for the same reason that the government can regulate the airwaves and media?

My argument would be that since you need to get a business license from the state and the state is not allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, age, etc, neither should the business. I don't know that that's the basis for not allowing them under precedent and everything but I find it a compelling argument.

[Sea Skimmer]

I have a question: why can't businesses discriminate?

Because anything like modern business is base on the idea that the government legally enforces your contracts. If you sit down in a restaurant, order food, eat it and don't pay, this is a crime you can be arrested over and thrown in jail ect... that's the government enforcement power supporting the business. The contract might not be written out, but we all understand you are entering into an agreement to pay for services. This is what is key, not that its a formal sheet of paper.

Equal protection and anti discrimination laws are based on the premise that it is inherently wrong for business taking advantage of this innate government power while discriminating against customers at other times. The government is for the people, by the people, and thus must serve and protect all people equally.

This is a problem in general with libertarianism, which is linked into all of this, because the libertarians badly want to ignore the fact that 'free' enterprise almost always ends up dependent on government enforcement power. Otherwise people could screw you all day long, and even suing in civil court means nothing without government power to back up enforcement of the ruling. The only other option would be to employ your own private armed force to collect debts; which is basically how we got governments in the first place. Armed groups end up fighting until someone comes on top, starts ordering people around at spear point because they can.

Now if you want to be discriminatory in who you donate money too, or volunteer time for, or other one way obligations from you to another, with no legally binding obligations made in return, nothing stops that, and nothing should. This sort of activity involves no contracts or enforcement.

[Simon_Jester]

I like that, Skimmer, it encapsulates the core of things very neatly. Businesses rely on the state as enforcers, so when they lay down rules for their own conduct, they have to stick to rules the state can justly enforce.

To add to that, I think it's a mix of this and a dash of what Zod said. In other words, the other part of this is that the government has the right (and indeed is required) to legislate that there cannot be any such thing as second-class citizens.

Banks cannot conspire to keep all blacks penned up in a ghetto by refusing to give mortgages to any black who tries to buy property outside the ghetto. Businesses cannot conspire to keep women subordinate by automatically assuming their husbands have a right to come in and screw around with an order or plan the wife set up.

[Scrib]

I get it now. Thanks guys,great answers.

[Wicked Pilot]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014 ... _kill.html

Bill is dead. It must be one of those two times of the day when someone in the GOP does something decent.

[Alyeska]

The publicity on this bill was so frighteningly bad that the state had to kill it. It overtly turned gays into second class citizens and would have lead to lawsuits.

They had to kill it lest this bill actually get enforced and give someone standing to go to SCOTUS and turn gays into a protected class nation wide.

I want to know what the hell they were thinking by proposing it in the first place.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Or at least that's my mental image of what they were doing when they penned that abomination. I can't see it being created out of anything other than pure malice.

[Simon_Jester]

I suspect it started as a law to uphold the "we can't be forced to act as venue for a gay couple's wedding reception, I don't believe in that!" thing some business owners try to do.

Ramp up the legal language a bit from there, and you've written a bill that reduces gays to second-class citizenship.