Is Kansas a Laughingstock or Do You Not Care?

[EvilMonkey]

The better question is would we draft a law that specifically states Jews dont have to provide services for Skinheads?

 

The answer is no. This law is unnecessary. You can already deny service to anyone for any reason provided that they are not a protected class.

 

Last I checked gay people are not a protected class, so the question is, why is Kansas wasting their tax payer money on this bill?

 

The law is nothing but hate, its to make people feel unwelcome. Its classic tyranny of the majority.

because despite not being listed as a protected class, people ARE suing and wasting courts time and taxpayer money.

[Balta1701]

The problem with that defense, frankly, is the fact that a person can be fired for being gay in about 30 states is absolutely insane and completely, utterly indefensible.

[Soxbadger]

because despite not being listed as a protected class, people ARE suing and wasting courts time and taxpayer money.

 

Really? Do you have evidence of a glut of Kansas lawsuits involving gay people not able to use the caterer of their choice?

 

I think we should be reigning in the amount of laws that we create, not creating more superfluous ones. But thats just me, maybe you want more unnecessary laws.

 

More govt restriction, right?

[EvilMonkey]

Really? Do you have evidence of a glut of Kansas lawsuits involving gay people not able to use the caterer of their choice?

 

I think we should be reigning in the amount of laws that we create, not creating more superfluous ones. But thats just me, maybe you want more unnecessary laws.

 

More govt restriction, right?

No, I agree that we have way too many laws on the books as it is. I think all these idiots that get to Washington, or the state capital as the case may be, feel the need to justify their time by making s*** up that doesn't need to be.

[StrangeSox]

because despite not being listed as a protected class, people ARE suing and wasting courts time and taxpayer money.

They are a protected class in several states under state law. They aren't wasting courts' time or "taxpayer money," they're filing legitimate cases where their civil rights have been violated.

[StrangeSox]

No, I agree that we have way too many laws on the books as it is. I think all these idiots that get to Washington, or the state capital as the case may be, feel the need to justify their time by making s*** up that doesn't need to be.

These laws are a reaction to court cases in Colorado and New Mexico where state courts have found that sexual orientation is a protected class based on state law. It's not exactly necessary because Kansas, Arizona and Georgia don't have that listed explicitly as a protected class, but it's a way of providing clear instructions to the court that anti-gay bigotry is a-okay in their state.

[Jenksismyhero]

LOL, you're kidding right?

 

Um, no? I didn't know what the law is.

 

Looking it up on wiki, it says there is a "Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for public employees only based on an executive order by Governor Kathleen Sibelius in 2007."

[Balta1701]

Um, no? I didn't know what the law is.

 

Looking it up on wiki, it says there is a "Statewide prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for public employees only based on an executive order by Governor Kathleen Sibelius in 2007."

See, that's part of the problem. It's actually hard to believe that 30 states allow people to be fired or denied housing solely because they're gay, but that's the law.

[Jenksismyhero]

See, that's part of the problem. It's actually hard to believe that 30 states allow people to be fired or denied housing solely because they're gay, but that's the law.

 

I'm curious, what if you owned a business and a customer came in with a handgun strapped to their body? Would you be ok serving them despite your fear/dislike of guns?

[Iwritecode]

I'm curious, what if you owned a business and a customer came in with a handgun strapped to their body? Would you be ok serving them despite your fear/dislike of guns?

 

Being a gun owner is a choice. It's not comparible.

[Jenksismyhero]

Being a gun owner is a choice. It's not comparible.

 

It's still something that Balta is absolutely 100% against. I'm wondering if he feels he needs to shut up and deal with it or if he'd be against such a customer entering his business.

[EvilMonkey]

These laws are a reaction to court cases in Colorado and New Mexico where state courts have found that sexual orientation is a protected class based on state law. It's not exactly necessary because Kansas, Arizona and Georgia don't have that listed explicitly as a protected class, but it's a way of providing clear instructions to the court that anti-gay bigotry is a-okay in their state.

I was referring to the glut of laws in general here, not this specific incident. We have way too many laws for way too many things, in general. I know why they passed it there in KS.

[Balta1701]

It's still something that Balta is absolutely 100% against. I'm wondering if he feels he needs to shut up and deal with it or if he'd be against such a customer entering his business.

Of course the problem is I could ask them to leave the weapon outside, so it doesn't exactly work. I also am struggling to figure out how two men kissing will kill me.

 

On the latter basis, probably not. If the person was willing to unload it or carrying a toy of some sort, fine.

[StrangeSox]

Of course the problem is I could ask them to leave the weapon outside, so it doesn't exactly work. I also am struggling to figure out how two men kissing will kill me.

IIRC depending on the state, "no firearms" signs aren't legally enforceable.

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course the problem is I could ask them to leave the weapon outside, so it doesn't exactly work. I also am struggling to figure out how two men kissing will kill me.

 

On the latter basis, probably not. If the person was willing to unload it or carrying a toy of some sort, fine.

 

As SS said, I dunno that that's true. And I guarantee that's the next step in this debate - is it constitutional to bar someone entry into a business for doing something that's constitutionally protected.

 

But really, you're a hypocrite. You don't agree with something that someone does/is, and you're fine discriminating against them. When the "something" is what you support, it's terrible. When it's not, it's acceptable. I assume you support the no gun sign provisions in the various concealed carry laws - how is that any different from what Kansas and other states are trying to do here?

 

Edited February 27, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

As SS said, I dunno that that's true. And I guarantee that's the next step in this debate - is it constitutional to bar someone entry into a business for doing something that's constitutionally protected.

 

But really, you're a hypocrite. You don't agree with something that someone does/is, and you're fine discriminating against them. When the "something" is what you support, it's terrible. When it's not, it's acceptable. I assume you support the no gun sign provisions in the various concealed carry laws - how is that any different from what Kansas and other states are trying to do here?

I'm waiting for you to give me an example that does not explicitly have the potential to cause me harm. If 2 gay people enter a room and want to purchase something my risk of death is not abnormally increased, if a person walks in with a gun that is fundamentally the case, my life and everyone else in the room, including the person carrying is at elevated risk.

 

A more comparable example would be a creationist or something like that, although again that still has the problem of being a clear personal decision. And, as a person who wants to be a geology professor, that's one I fully expect I have occur.

[greg775]

Your bishop is lying. Weddings are a part of the bill. General discrimination is the rest. This makes it so that even if a couple gets married in another state, businesses need not recognize them as married in Kansas.

 

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measu...453_01_0000.pdf

 

Our bishop needs an editor, then. What a dope. His whole column was ripping the media for saying it only has to do with weddings.

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm waiting for you to give me an example that does not explicitly have the potential to cause me harm. If 2 gay people enter a room and want to purchase something my risk of death is not abnormally increased, if a person walks in with a gun that is fundamentally the case, my life and everyone else in the room, including the person carrying is at elevated risk.

 

A more comparable example would be a creationist or something like that, although again that still has the problem of being a clear personal decision. And, as a person who wants to be a geology professor, that's one I fully expect I have occur.

 

Harm has nothing to do with it. It's your belief, end of story. And really, your fear of being harmed by a gun entering your business is about as ludicrous as a gay guy raping someone in a shower full of straight men.

 

This is why it's better to let everyone be a racist/homophobic/gun-hating prick. Everyone will be hated equally and the world can move on.

[StrangeSox]

As SS said, I dunno that that's true. And I guarantee that's the next step in this debate - is it constitutional to bar someone entry into a business for doing something that's constitutionally protected.

 

But really, you're a hypocrite. You don't agree with something that someone does/is, and you're fine discriminating against them. When the "something" is what you support, it's terrible. When it's not, it's acceptable. I assume you support the no gun sign provisions in the various concealed carry laws - how is that any different from what Kansas and other states are trying to do here?

It's not hypocritical to make distinctions.

 

But please, keep comparing human sexuality being used as a reason to discriminate to people not wanting deadly weapons carried into public places.

[StrangeSox]

Harm has nothing to do with it. It's your belief, end of story. And really, your fear of being harmed by a gun entering your business is about as ludicrous as a gay guy raping someone in a shower full of straight men.

 

This is why it's better to let everyone be a racist/homophobic/gun-hating prick. Everyone will be hated equally and the world can move on.

 

You can say that because you'll have essentially zero personal negative impact.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

You can say that because you'll have essentially zero personal negative impact.

 

Except when I go to Balta's store!

[StrangeSox]

Because again carrying a gun is just like being gay or black.

[farmteam]

As SS said, I dunno that that's true. And I guarantee that's the next step in this debate - is it constitutional to bar someone entry into a business for doing something that's constitutionally protected.

 

But really, you're a hypocrite. You don't agree with something that someone does/is, and you're fine discriminating against them. When the "something" is what you support, it's terrible. When it's not, it's acceptable. I assume you support the no gun sign provisions in the various concealed carry laws - how is that any different from what Kansas and other states are trying to do here?

You skate over this like it's not an important distinction. It was already said -- bringing a gun into a store = choice. Sexual orientation = not a choice.

[farmteam]

Because again carrying a gun is just like being gay or black.

While I personally agree with this, I don't really like that line of argument. All are protected by the Constitution (well, carrying a gun and race are, hopefully sexual orientation will be soon too), so if you go down this path I feel it inevitably leads to trying to say which Constitutional rights are more important than others. I don't think any amendment should really be paramount to another, unless there's direct conflict, and that shouldn't happen.

[Jenksismyhero]

You skate over this like it's not an important distinction. It was already said -- bringing a gun into a store = choice. Sexual orientation = not a choice.

 

Shopping in general is a choice. Do you have a constitutional right to be able to go into private businesses?

 

And I'm not discounting the distinction here. I just think it's a distinction without a difference when you're talking about the logic behind it. If you're infringing on a constitutional right, you're infringing on a constitutional right.