What The Hell Just Happened In Kansas? Law Provides Right To Deny Gay Interaction

The bill that just overwhelmingly passed the Kansas House of Representatives is quite something. You can read it in its entirety here. It is premised on the notion that the most pressing injustice in Kansas right now is the persecution some religious people are allegedly experiencing at the hands of homosexuals.

The remedy for such a terrible threat is, however, state support for more discrimination. The law empowers any individual or business to refuse to interact with, do business with, or in any way come into contact with anyone who may have some connection to a gay civil union, or civil marriage or … well any “similar arrangement” (room-mates?). It gives the full backing of the law to any restaurant or bar-owner who puts up a sign that says “No Gays Served”...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/

See Didge & Catman - this is what happens when you go out of your way to appease religious zealots - the decline of all civil rights achievements made over the past 50 years.

Tess. wrote:The bill that just overwhelmingly passed the Kansas House of Representatives is quite something. You can read it in its entirety here. It is premised on the notion that the most pressing injustice in Kansas right now is the persecution some religious people are allegedly experiencing at the hands of homosexuals.

The remedy for such a terrible threat is, however, state support for more discrimination. The law empowers any individual or business to refuse to interact with, do business with, or in any way come into contact with anyone who may have some connection to a gay civil union, or civil marriage or … well any “similar arrangement” (room-mates?). It gives the full backing of the law to any restaurant or bar-owner who puts up a sign that says “No Gays Served”...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/

See Didge & Catman - this is what happens when you go out of your way to appease religious zealots - the decline of all civil rights achievements made over the past 50 years.

wow freedom of choice works both ways, good for Kansas for being so bold.

heavenly father wrote:

Tess. wrote:The bill that just overwhelmingly passed the Kansas House of Representatives is quite something. You can read it in its entirety here. It is premised on the notion that the most pressing injustice in Kansas right now is the persecution some religious people are allegedly experiencing at the hands of homosexuals.

The remedy for such a terrible threat is, however, state support for more discrimination. The law empowers any individual or business to refuse to interact with, do business with, or in any way come into contact with anyone who may have some connection to a gay civil union, or civil marriage or … well any “similar arrangement” (room-mates?). It gives the full backing of the law to any restaurant or bar-owner who puts up a sign that says “No Gays Served”...

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/

See Didge & Catman - this is what happens when you go out of your way to appease religious zealots - the decline of all civil rights achievements made over the past 50 years.

wow freedom of choice works both ways, good for Kansas for being so bold.

It's bullshit. Soon we'll be seeing sit-ins, just you wait.

You know, I just want to say to any Christian who supposedly believes in "love thy neighbor," "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc., yet supports this sort of apartheid, that they are just hypocrites who try to hide their hatred behind a selective reading of the Bible.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You know, I just want to say to any Christian who supposedly believes in "love thy neighbor," "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc., yet supports this sort of apartheid, that they are just hypocrites who try to hide their hatred behind a selective reading of the Bible.

hang on gays always moan about equality, this has given those who disagree with homosexuals the right not to have anything to do with them, isn't that how it should be... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:You know, I just want to say to any Christian who supposedly believes in "love thy neighbor," "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc., yet supports this sort of apartheid, that they are just hypocrites who try to hide their hatred behind a selective reading of the Bible.

hang on gays always moan about equality, this has given those who disagree with homosexuals the right not to have anything to do with them, isn't that how it should be... :D 

And what about all those nice Christian quotes from scripture Ben just gave you? Or do you ignore those parts because they aren't the bits that conveniently support your bigoted attitude?

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:You know, I just want to say to any Christian who supposedly believes in "love thy neighbor," "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc., yet supports this sort of apartheid, that they are just hypocrites who try to hide their hatred behind a selective reading of the Bible.

hang on gays always moan about equality, this has given those who disagree with homosexuals the right not to have anything to do with them, isn't that how it should be... :D 

If you don't want anything to do with gay people, you should not be friends with them in your personal life and you should NOT advertise your business as being open to the public if for you, that public doesn't include gay people -- because it does for the majority of us.

A decision like this clears a path for business owners to bar people of other religions, people of other races ... it sets Kansas back 60 years.

It is ridiculous what good will it do. It will attract major demonstrations they will have more gay customers as a result of this not less. Live and let live. Still if I were gay I wouldn't want to give the owners my money I would ask reasonable people to boycott the businesses rather than go down the militant route that will hurt more and they will go out of business.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

hang on gays always moan about equality, this has given those who disagree with homosexuals the right not to have anything to do with them, isn't that how it should be... :D 

If you don't want anything to do with gay people, you should not be friends with them in your personal life and you should NOT advertise your business as being open to the public if for you, that public doesn't include gay people -- because it does for the majority of us.

A decision like this clears a path for business owners to bar people of other religions, people of other races ... it sets Kansas back 60 years.

this has given business owners the right to refuse sale, which is also frredom of choice for them...equality..

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:You know, I just want to say to any Christian who supposedly believes in "love thy neighbor," "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc., yet supports this sort of apartheid, that they are just hypocrites who try to hide their hatred behind a selective reading of the Bible.

hang on gays always moan about equality, this has given those who disagree with homosexuals the right not to have anything to do with them, isn't that how it should be... :D 

Gay seek the same rights as everyone, no denial of rights to other people.
what right Did gays take away? the right to disciminate? because that is not really a right?

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

hang on gays always moan about equality, this has given those who disagree with homosexuals the right not to have anything to do with them, isn't that how it should be... :D 

Gay seek the same rights as everyone, no denial of rights to other people.
what right Did gays take away? the right to disciminate? because that is not really a right?

on the contrary the b&b incident proved otherwise..the right to refuse sale to whom ever you wish should be there. :D 

@HF
No it should not. That is not a right and should not be one.

There is NO right to refuse sale in Australia, beyond dress code and intoxication.


You’re assertion is incredibly immoral, Pretty sure Jesus Strongly disagrees with you.
Let he who is without sin may cast the first stone, love thy fellow man (if you hate gays you are already sinful), and treat other how you would like to be treated. Love thy Enemy. Seems he Most of what Jesus teachers is in Direct Conflict with you opinion.

veya_victaous wrote:@HF
No it should not. That is not a right and should not be one.

There is NO right to refuse sale in Australia, beyond dress code and intoxication.


You’re assertion is incredibly immoral, Pretty sure Jesus Strongly disagrees with you.
Let he who is without sin may cast the first stone, love thy fellow man (if you hate gays you are already sinful), and treat other how you would like to be treated.  Love thy Enemy. Seems he Most of what Jesus teachers is in Direct Conflict with you opinion.

i disagree the b&b owners made it clear only married couples were allowed at their home, they should have been allowed to turn the gay couple away, i dare say men normal couples had been turned away and didn't seek compensation.. :D 

if you really want equality it must work both ways.. :D 

No they have a right to run a BB or be Prejudice, not both.   

The choice to express their Personal opinion ended when they choose to Provide a service to the public.

veya_victaous wrote:No they have a right to run a BB or be Prejudice, not both.   

The choice to express their Personal opinion ended when they choose to Provide a service to the public.

i would say if equality rules, which the gay community seem to like shouting about, then the owners should have the right to say who they let in to their own home.. :D 

it is either equal right or not.. :D

heavenly father wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:No they have a right to run a BB or be Prejudice, not both.   

The choice to express their Personal opinion ended when they choose to Provide a service to the public.

i would say if equality rules, which the gay community seem to like shouting about, then the owners should have the right to say who they let in to their own home.. :D 

it is either equal right or not.. :D

YES And I would NOT Support a Gay BB owner denying you service either. It is not their home it is a BB thus a place of business.
IF they want it to be their home and to exercise their prejudices they can, close the BB and stop offering a servcie to the public if they cant manage their hateful sickenss.

I just want to know where it stops -- does the owner of the only grocery store in a small town, who doesn't like black people, get to say that black people now have to go to the next town over to buy food? What if the owner in the next town doesn't like black people either?

I've actually heard some hard-core libertarians who tend to support this idea that you're some kind of king of your business argue that black people could always turn to farming to get their food. I guess they could turn to pharmacology and whip up their own aspirin while they're at it ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just want to know where it stops -- does the owner of the only grocery store in a small town, who doesn't like black people, get to say that black people now have to go to the next town over to buy food? What if the owner in the next town doesn't like black people either?

I've actually heard some hard-core libertarians who tend to support this idea that you're some kind of king of your business argue that black people could always turn to farming to get their food. I guess they could turn to pharmacology and whip up their own aspirin while they're at it ...

Which is exactly why it is illegal here, towns can be 100's of km apart.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You know, I just want to say to any Christian who supposedly believes in "love thy neighbor," "judge not lest ye be judged," "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc., yet supports this sort of apartheid, that they are just hypocrites who try to hide their hatred behind a selective reading of the Bible.

It's not just Christians! And frankly I'm amazed Catman has nothing to say about it, but that was my point about the event in the UK organized by the radical preacher who wanted to put all homosexuals in prison, and Catman and Didge were sticking up for him. This is the end result, but of course you must'nt criticize muslims no matter what vile things they endorse, that's racism. Christians on the other hand are fair game, they don't fall into the victim category.

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

hang on gays always moan about equality, this has given those who disagree with homosexuals the right not to have anything to do with them, isn't that how it should be... :D 

Gay seek the same rights as everyone, no denial of rights to other people.
what right Did gays take away? the right to disciminate? because that is not really a right?

christian hotel comes to mind

veya_victaous wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i would say if equality rules, which the gay community seem to like shouting about, then the owners should have the right to say who they let in to their own home.. :D 

it is either equal right or not.. :D

YES And I would NOT Support a Gay BB owner denying you service either. It is not their home it is a BB thus a place of business.
IF they want it to be their home and to exercise their prejudices they can, close the BB and stop offering a servcie to the public if they cant manage their hateful sickenss.

It's not hateful it is what christian believe and if a moslim couple ran a B&B and refused a gay couple do you think there would be a court case , i think not

:D 

ISLAM isn't a race ~ it's a religion...

Anti-Islamic feeling (or thoughts..) isn't "racism" ~ it's an opinion..

Proselytysing, preaching or language designed to attack or provoke attacks against people on the basis of race, religion, gender or philosophy isn't "racism", either ~ it's called Vilification !

  

WITH regards to the actions of those obnoxious bigots in the State legislature in Kansas, in the O/P ~ I reckon it will be interesting to see how long it takes the Civil Rights Union, various gay rights groups, and other activist groups to bring in the relevant Federal bodies to overturn those laws on the basis of anti-villification/anti-hate-speech ?    

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just want to know where it stops -- does the owner of the only grocery store in a small town, who doesn't like black people, get to say that black people now have to go to the next town over to buy food? What if the owner in the next town doesn't like black people either?

I've actually heard some hard-core libertarians who tend to support this idea that you're some kind of king of your business argue that black people could always turn to farming to get their food. I guess they could turn to pharmacology and whip up their own aspirin while they're at it ...

I see your point here ben, but maybe the gay community have pushed too far and people are fighting back . I have no problem with anyone gay straight black white yellow whatever , but the for me i fell gays have pushed too far such as the B&B here in the UK with the Christian couple i believe that the gay couple knew exactly what they were up to when targeted this B&B and they just went straight out to hurt them because they were Christians, I know a few gays who are wonderful people and they even said that to do that deliberatly to a Christian couple was wrong , they appreciate my beliefs as i appreciate who they are which is beautiful kind and very caring couple .

So like i said maybe they have pushed too far and now this is the result sadly .

Beekeeper wrote::D 

ISLAM isn't a race ~ it's a religion...

Anti-Islamic feeling (or thoughts..) isn't "racism" ~ it's an opinion..

Proselytysing, preaching or language designed to attack or provoke attacks against people on the basis of race, religion, gender or philosophy isn't "racism", either ~ it's called Vilification !

  

WITH regards to the actions of those obnoxious bigots in the State legislature in Kansas, in the O/P ~ I reckon it will be interesting to see how long it takes the Civil Rights Union, various gay rights groups, and other activist groups to bring in the relevant Federal bodies overthrow these laws on the basis of anti-villification/anti-hate-speech ?    

which is why the gay couple here in the UK targeted a Christian couple who run a B&B .

Can't stay and debate i have to go and look after my parents back later .

lol

It's about time that equal rights meant equal rights.

People must have the right to not like another person, or group of people.

I've said it before to Mr Catman on here - when he and his fellow gays insist that somebody must like them, he is doing unto them what others have done unto his group for years, and something he has fought over those years.

Forcing unwanted rules on groups of people doesn't go down too well.

Ask the Germans.

BigAndy9 wrote:lol

It's about time that equal rights meant equal rights.

People must have the right to not like another person, or group of people.

I've said it before to Mr Catman on here - when he and his fellow gays insist that somebody must like them, he is doing unto them what others have done unto his group for years, and something he has fought over those years.

Forcing unwanted rules on groups of people doesn't go down too well.

Ask the Germans.

precisely my point if it is equal rights,people have the right to not agree or like something...

BigAndy9 wrote:lol

It's about time that equal rights meant equal rights.

People must have the right to not like another person, or group of people.

I've said it before to Mr Catman on here - when he and his fellow gays insist that somebody must like them, he is doing unto them what others have done unto his group for years, and something he has fought over those years.

Forcing unwanted rules on groups of people doesn't go down too well.

Ask the Germans.

what is there to like about Catman ?????????????????????????????????????????

I still don't get it. What is the big deal? So some guys like guys some ladies like ladies.Why does anyone care if all parties are consenting and legal? I know i've made this argument before but I have to say it again unless you're planning on looking into their windows while they're doing the deed (which is another problem on its own) what interest do you have in who's banging who?

If there is a god and he disapproves then well they're screwed. If there is a god who really holds to the "Judge not lest ye shall be judged" then all those getting up in arms about guys kissing are going to be in for a very rude awakening at the gates.

if all things are equal no one cares... :D 

Puriel wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:lol

It's about time that equal rights meant equal rights.

People must have the right to not like another person, or group of people.

I've said it before to Mr Catman on here - when he and his fellow gays insist that somebody must like them, he is doing unto them what others have done unto his group for years, and something he has fought over those years.

Forcing unwanted rules on groups of people doesn't go down too well.

Ask the Germans.

what is there to like about Catman ?????????????????????????????????????????

  

YOU still here 'Putrid', you obnoxious little oxygen thief !?!

 ::dedhrs::

Beekeeper wrote:

Puriel wrote:

what is there to like about Catman ?????????????????????????????????????????

  

YOU still here 'Putrid', you obnoxious little oxygen thief !?!

 ::dedhrs::

How would this forum ever survive without your erudite contribution to debate?

Personally I think it is great to see equality finally shines through..kansas is a very brave and honest state.. :D 

I'm going to read this post fully & contribute to it positively later.

Tess. wrote:

Beekeeper wrote:
  

YOU still here 'Putrid', you obnoxious little oxygen thief !?!
::dedhrs::

How would this forum ever survive without your erudite contribution to debate?

 

Well, Tess...

Most assuredly, it would be a much more boring and staid locale..

Equally, how might it be without your always-welcoming and even-handed approach to the world at large, I wonder ?    

Maine coon lover wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Gay seek the same rights as everyone, no denial of rights to other people.
what right Did gays take away? the right to disciminate? because that is not really a right?

christian hotel comes to mind

NOT a right!!! You have a right to expect fair and equal treatment, you don’t have a right to impose your beliefs on the public IF you run a business in the service industry. They don’t have to like gays, they don’t have to let them into their home. BUT if that is how they feel they should not be offering a service to the public.

What if it hadn't been a BB but was a Chemist, they should be able to deny people birth control? Deny diabetic homosexual insulin? If you open to the public you're open to the PUBLIC

Quick question - how did the B&B couple know the gays were gay?

Oh dear. They didn't. They objected to two men sharing a double bed in the beginning.

Sassy wrote:Oh dear.   They didn't.   They objected to two men sharing a double bed in the beginning.

That'll do.

So there you go veya:

"What if it hadn't been a BB but was a Chemist, they should be able to deny people birth control? Deny diabetic homosexual insulin? If you open to the public you're open to the PUBLIC"

It is unlikely that men or women would walk in to a chemists in a double bed, therefore making it rather obvious they are gay.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh dear.   They didn't.   They objected to two men sharing a double bed in the beginning.

That'll do.

So there you go veya:

"What if it hadn't been a BB but was a Chemist, they should be able to deny people birth control? Deny diabetic homosexual insulin? If you open to the public you're open to the PUBLIC"

It is unlikely that men or women would walk in to a chemists in a double bed, therefore making it rather obvious they are gay.

So? Nothing gives them the right to open their doors to the public and then discriminate against certain members of it.

What the fuck has that got to do with it Andy.   Their business is people buying the use of the bed for the night and a breakfast in the morning.   If that is their business, they don't get to say who can use it and who can't.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

That'll do.

So there you go veya:

"What if it hadn't been a BB but was a Chemist, they should be able to deny people birth control? Deny diabetic homosexual insulin? If you open to the public you're open to the PUBLIC"

It is unlikely that men or women would walk in to a chemists in a double bed, therefore making it rather obvious they are gay.

So? Nothing gives them the right to open their doors to the public and then discriminate against certain members of it.

It would appear they opened their doors to heterosexual people.

And I think they should be allowed to do that, if that is their wish.

Well luckily, your opinion doesn't count, the ruling of the courts does.

Sassy wrote:Well luckily, your opinion doesn't count, the ruling of the courts does.

That's just it sassy - my opinion does count.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

That'll do.

So there you go veya:

"What if it hadn't been a BB but was a Chemist, they should be able to deny people birth control? Deny diabetic homosexual insulin? If you open to the public you're open to the PUBLIC"

It is unlikely that men or women would walk in to a chemists in a double bed, therefore making it rather obvious they are gay.

So? Nothing gives them the right to open their doors to the public and then discriminate against certain members of it.

It would appear they opened their doors to heterosexual people.

And I think they should be allowed to do that, if that is their wish.

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/

"Here at Chymorvah you will be met by a friendly welcome. Besides excellent food in plenty and comfortable beds, you will find a warm hospitality and much happiness, mingled with good service."

"To Book please phone 01736 710497 or fax 01736 710508 or choose a room from below and click book here for your enquiry."

That means "open to the public." Look on their website, they don't even advertise their wish to discriminate. Sorry, business owners who wish to discriminate should not be open to the public.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

It would appear they opened their doors to heterosexual people.

And I think they should be allowed to do that, if that is their wish.

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/

"Here at Chymorvah you will be met by a friendly welcome. Besides excellent food in plenty and comfortable beds, you will find a warm hospitality and much happiness, mingled with good service."

"To Book please phone 01736 710497 or fax 01736 710508 or choose a room from below and click book here for your enquiry."

That means "open to the public." Look on their website, they don't even advertise their wish to discriminate. Sorry, business owners who wish to discriminate should not be open to the public.

They made it very clear they didn't want those people there. However they did it, I think they did the right thing.

Do you think they should be forced to do what they don't want to?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

It would appear they opened their doors to heterosexual people.

And I think they should be allowed to do that, if that is their wish.

http://www.chymorvah.co.uk/

"Here at Chymorvah you will be met by a friendly welcome. Besides excellent food in plenty and comfortable beds, you will find a warm hospitality and much happiness, mingled with good service."

"To Book please phone 01736 710497 or fax 01736 710508 or choose a room from below and click book here for your enquiry."

That means "open to the public." Look on their website, they don't even advertise their wish to discriminate. Sorry, business owners who wish to discriminate should not be open to the public.

They made it very clear they didn't want those people there.  However they did it, I think they did the right thing.  

Do you think they should be forced to do what they don't want to?

Yes, in this case. If someone wanted to force them to consume mud, though, I'd be against that sort of thing.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:Oh dear.   They didn't.   They objected to two men sharing a double bed in the beginning.

That'll do.

So there you go veya:

"What if it hadn't been a BB but was a Chemist, they should be able to deny people birth control? Deny diabetic homosexual insulin? If you open to the public you're open to the PUBLIC"

It is unlikely that men or women would walk in to a chemists in a double bed, therefore making it rather obvious they are gay.

So if catman walked in to a Chemist with his "Militant Homosexual and Proud" t-shirt sporting a great Big Rainbow Triangle they would guess he was gay? and if they did should they be allowed to deny him service? What if they saw Eliezl kiss his boyfriends on the footpath outside? should they deny him?

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:
Oh dear.   They didn't.   They objected to two men sharing a double bed in the beginning.

That'll do.

So there you go veya:

"What if it hadn't been a BB but was a Chemist, they should be able to deny people birth control? Deny diabetic homosexual insulin? If you open to the public you're open to the PUBLIC"

It is unlikely that men or women would walk in to a chemists in a double bed, therefore making it rather obvious they are gay.

   ONCE somebody registers their business as a B&B, Motel or Hotel ~ rather than a "private" guest house, clubhouse or boarding house ~ they become a public service provider...

WHICH then means that the "hosts" have agreed to abide by certain legislated conditions, rules and regulations; as laid down in the relevant government 'Acts'..

IF the owners of said establishment don't want to abide by those agreements, for some petty or selfish "personal reasons" ~ then they should de-register their business, and stop advertising it as something it clearly isn't !    

THAT was what the arrogant and stupid "AntiGay B&B" operators in England were doing a couple of years ago ~ advertising their guest house as a B&B, but deliberately contravening the conditions laid down for running a B&B or motel..
THEIR prosecution had nothing at all to do with any imagined attacks on their personal beliefs...