Is Kansas a Laughingstock or Do You Not Care?

[Soxbadger]

Religious objection is the logic, whether you agree or disagree with it.

 

And it's absolutely comparable under the law. How do you, of all people, not see that?

 

Religion is based on FAITH and BELIEF. It is inherently illogical, even the most devout religious person has to admit that.

 

No one knows if being gay will make them go to hell, its a BELIEF.

 

How is gun and gay comparable under the law? I dont see that.

 

Now lets say that gay people wanted to bring vials of bubonic plague into a store, that would be comparable to a gun. Sure nothing may happen, but there is a risk, and I completely understand why a store owner would want someone to leave their bubonic plague at home.

[Jenksismyhero]

Come on now Jenks. If there's a crazy religion that thinks interracial marriage is a sin, should they be allowed to refuse service to that interracial couple? No because of the 14th (and because it's morally wrong). Discrimination is absolutely and totally wrong. I can't believe you are supporting this point.

 

The issue about the Second is a different one and is subject to its own problems. I think everyone agrees that the Second is subject to certain reasonable restrictions. What those reasonable restrictions are is its own argument...

 

No no, let me be clear here: I don't find that to be a legitimate reason to restrict a right of public accommodation (even assuming that sexuality is a protected class) under existing laws. What i've said is that the logic and legal arguments behind the two are the same - you need a legitimate reason to curb or restrict that right. I've called Balta a hypocrite because he'd gladly infringe upon someone's right to carry a weapon over the right to publicly accommodate someone. That's him simply valuing what he agrees with over what he doesn't agree with, which is no different than what the legislators in Kansas and other states are doing (they think their religious freedom right trumps the right of public accommodation/anti-discrimination). The fact that the two deal with a person and an object or one is more dangerous is irrelevant.

 

And yes, the 2nd amendment arguments are obviously more complex, but "guns are dangerous" as a legitimate reason has, thus far, been applied only in limited situations, usually in government or quasi-government areas. If that reason had been accepted concealed carry in public wouldn't exist.

[Balta1701]

No no, let me be clear here: I don't find that to be a legitimate reason to restrict a right of public accommodation (even assuming that sexuality is a protected class) under existing laws. What i've said is that the logic and legal arguments behind the two are the same - you need a legitimate reason to curb or restrict that right. I've called Balta a hypocrite because he'd gladly infringe upon someone's right to carry a weapon over the right to publicly accommodate someone. That's him simply valuing what he agrees with over what he doesn't agree with, which is no different than what the legislators in Kansas and other states are doing (they think their religious freedom right trumps the right of public accommodation/anti-discrimination). The fact that the two deal with a person and an object or one is more dangerous is irrelevant.

 

And yes, the 2nd amendment arguments are obviously more complex, but "guns are dangerous" as a legitimate reason has, thus far, been applied only in limited situations, usually in government or quasi-government areas. If that reason had been accepted concealed carry in public wouldn't exist.

So you agree that the law allows restrictions on where you can carry guns as dangerous items?

[Jenksismyhero]

So you agree that the law allows restrictions on where you can carry guns as dangerous items?

 

Yes, in limited situations based on an actual, legitimate reasons - i.e. airports and government buildings. A general "someone might shoot me" argument is not legitimate. Those arguments failed during the fight for concealed carry in public.

[Soxbadger]

No no, let me be clear here: I don't find that to be a legitimate reason to restrict a right of public accommodation (even assuming that sexuality is a protected class) under existing laws. What i've said is that the logic and legal arguments behind the two are the same - you need a legitimate reason to curb or restrict that right. I've called Balta a hypocrite because he'd gladly infringe upon someone's right to carry a weapon over the right to publicly accommodate someone. That's him simply valuing what he agrees with over what he doesn't agree with, which is no different than what the legislators in Kansas and other states are doing (they think their religious freedom right trumps the right of public accommodation/anti-discrimination). The fact that the two deal with a person and an object or one is more dangerous is irrelevant.

 

And yes, the 2nd amendment arguments are obviously more complex, but "guns are dangerous" as a legitimate reason has, thus far, been applied only in limited situations, usually in government or quasi-government areas. If that reason had been accepted concealed carry in public wouldn't exist.

 

And the legitimate reason to curb/restrict guns is danger.

 

The legitimate reason to curb/restrict gays is....

 

Thats why its a pointless comparison, its apples/oranges. Danger isnt irrelevant, or at least it shouldnt be irrelevant. Neither is the fact that one is something you can leave behind, whereas the other isnt.

 

You can leave your gun at home, you cant leave your gay.

 

You just dont want to actually respond to the issue, you want to cloak it into some completely irrelevant gun argument.

[Balta1701]

Yes, in limited situations based on an actual, legitimate reasons - i.e. airports and government buildings. A general "someone might shoot me" argument is not legitimate. Those arguments failed during the fight for concealed carry in public.

Oh, so it's fair to assume that certain situations are more likely to produce actions where guns would not be wanted, and based on the type of things they're doing people ought to be able to determine whether those things should be allowed?

[Jenksismyhero]

And the legitimate reason to curb/restrict guns is danger.

 

The legitimate reason to curb/restrict gays is....

 

Thats why its a pointless comparison, its apples/oranges. Danger isnt irrelevant, or at least it shouldnt be irrelevant. Neither is the fact that one is something you can leave behind, whereas the other isnt.

 

You can leave your gun at home, you cant leave your gay.

 

You just dont want to actually respond to the issue, you want to cloak it into some completely irrelevant gun argument.

 

You're still not getting it. The legitimate reason put forth by these groups is religious freedom. You clearly don't buy that, but lots of other people do and so has our legal system in the past.

 

And "you can simply not do X, Y and Z" or "Just don't do X, Y and Z here" has rarely worked as an argument in these cases, so I don't know why you think it's important here. We don't tell people to stop speaking because they can just easily shut up or talk in their homes. You don't lose your rights simply because there is an easier alternative.

 

Lastly, I'm not cloaking anything. I'm pointing out how people emphasize rights more than others. People in this very thread keep talking about how awful discrimination is and we should never change the laws and blah blah and yet we still have minority and gender only contracts, affirmative action, etc., the freaking definition of discrimination on race and gender. We're cool with it because we think there's a legitimate reason for doing so. Well, the people of Kansas think there's a legitimate reason for not having to serve gay people if they don't want to.

 

 

edit: I should say "some people in Kansas" not "the people of"

Edited February 27, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

Oh, so it's fair to assume that certain situations are more likely to produce actions where guns would not be wanted, and based on the type of things they're doing people ought to be able to determine whether those things should be allowed?

 

Hey Socrates, I've never said otherwise. But when you get down to it, you being fearful of a person shooting you because they have a gun on them is never going to be considered valid or legitimate enough to curb their right to carry a gun. I dunno where that line will be drawn, but I really doubt it's going to be every single business.

[Balta1701]

Hey Socrates, I've never said otherwise. But when you get down to it, you being fearful of a person shooting you because they have a gun on them is never going to be considered valid or legitimate enough to curb their right to carry a gun. I dunno where that line will be drawn, but I really doubt it's going to be every single business.

And even I would say I have no issues with "some businesses" allowing guns. It'd be hard to ban them from a gun store/gun range, for the obvious example. But if you're going to accept that some places don't need them, then it no longer is a matter of "freedom" whether you're able to carry them or not.

[illinilaw08]

You're still not getting it. The legitimate reason put forth by these groups is religious freedom. You clearly don't buy that, but lots of other people do and so has our legal system in the past.

 

And "you can simply not do X, Y and Z" or "Just don't do X, Y and Z here" has rarely worked as an argument in these cases, so I don't know why you think it's important here. We don't tell people to stop speaking because they can just easily shut up or talk in their homes. You don't lose your rights simply because there is an easier alternative.

 

Lastly, I'm not cloaking anything. I'm pointing out how people emphasis rights more than others. People in this very thread keep talking about how awful discrimination is and we should never change the laws and blah blah and yet we still have minority and gender only contracts, affirmative action, etc., the freaking definition of discrimination on race and gender. We're cool with it because we think there's a legitimate reason for doing so. Well, the people of Kansas think there's a legitimate reason for not having to serve gay people if they don't want to.

 

 

edit: I should say "some people in Kansas" not "the people of"

 

Here's where I stand on the Second and Balta's hypothetical business. If Balta operates a bar, it should be within his rights to prevent Jenks from carrying in his business. If Balta is Jerry Reinsdorf, it should be within his rights as a business owner to prevent Jenks from carrying at the UC or the Cell. The sports arena leads to heightened emotions and the serving of alcohol leads to reduced inhibitions. Hence, the owner of that business has a legitimate reason to keep guns out.

 

Now, if Balta owns a pet store and Jenks has a permit to conceal and carry, Balta is infringing on Jenks' 2nd Amendment right to carry to ban Jenks from carrying in his store (or by frisking Jenks when he enters the store, or refusing service to Jenks because he has a CCW, whatever). I think Balta has a better argument if Jenks is wearing a hip holster because that weapon in the open could scare people out of Balta's store. Balta has a better argument, at that juncture, to ask Jenks to leave the store.

 

I think it's legitimate to say that the Catholic Church can refuse to perform a gay wedding. I don't think it's legitimate to say that a wedding photographer or a wedding cake business should be able to, on the grounds of religious freedom, deny their service to a protected class (which hopefully will include LGBT in the near future at the federal level). There's a clear distinction between the Church performing a sacrament and a private business providing a service.

[illinilaw08]

And even I would say I have no issues with "some businesses" allowing guns. It'd be hard to ban them from a gun store/gun range, for the obvious example. But if you're going to accept that some places don't need them, then it no longer is a matter of "freedom" whether you're able to carry them or not.

 

I will say that there needs to be some clarity on where and when gun owners can carry. Like it or not, the Second exists. Like it or not, there are people that feel the need to carry a firearm when they go out in public. That hypothetical firearm owner should be able to have a pretty good idea as to where they can carry so they know when they need to leave the gun at home (courthouse, going out to get hammered, jury duty, whatever).

 

Again, however, I will say that I hate the idea of "open carry." In 2011, there was a controversy at the Indianapolis Zoo when a dude was openly carrying a firearm. He was asked to conceal the gun or leave. He refused. The police were called and they escorted him off the premises. People were up in arms (no pun intended) that the Zoo had the audacity to call the police and that the police made the guy leave...

[Soxbadger]

You're still not getting it. The legitimate reason put forth by these groups is religious freedom. You clearly don't buy that, but lots of other people do and so has our legal system in the past.

 

And "you can simply not do X, Y and Z" or "Just don't do X, Y and Z here" has rarely worked as an argument in these cases, so I don't know why you think it's important here. We don't tell people to stop speaking because they can just easily shut up or talk in their homes. You don't lose your rights simply because there is an easier alternative.

 

Lastly, I'm not cloaking anything. I'm pointing out how people emphasis rights more than others. People in this very thread keep talking about how awful discrimination is and we should never change the laws and blah blah and yet we still have minority and gender only contracts, affirmative action, etc., the freaking definition of discrimination on race and gender. We're cool with it because we think there's a legitimate reason for doing so. Well, the people of Kansas think there's a legitimate reason for not having to serve gay people if they don't want to.

 

 

edit: I should say "some people in Kansas" not "the people of"

 

Where have I argued against religious freedom? I believe I said that the Kansas law is an unnecessary waste of time.

 

Religious freedom should be a shield, not a sword. Id be against any law that said private companies cant have Christmas trees, etc. But in this case, religion is being used as a sword to attack others they dont agree with.

 

Might as well say that Christians dont have to serve Jews because they killed Christ. I mean why not?

 

Everyone has the right to believe in whatever fairy tale they want.

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's where I stand on the Second and Balta's hypothetical business. If Balta operates a bar, it should be within his rights to prevent Jenks from carrying in his business. If Balta is Jerry Reinsdorf, it should be within his rights as a business owner to prevent Jenks from carrying at the UC or the Cell. The sports arena leads to heightened emotions and the serving of alcohol leads to reduced inhibitions. Hence, the owner of that business has a legitimate reason to keep guns out.

 

Now, if Balta owns a pet store and Jenks has a permit to conceal and carry, Balta is infringing on Jenks' 2nd Amendment right to carry to ban Jenks from carrying in his store (or by frisking Jenks when he enters the store, or refusing service to Jenks because he has a CCW, whatever). I think Balta has a better argument if Jenks is wearing a hip holster because that weapon in the open could scare people out of Balta's store. Balta has a better argument, at that juncture, to ask Jenks to leave the store.

 

I think it's legitimate to say that the Catholic Church can refuse to perform a gay wedding. I don't think it's legitimate to say that a wedding photographer or a wedding cake business should be able to, on the grounds of religious freedom, deny their service to a protected class (which hopefully will include LGBT in the near future at the federal level). There's a clear distinction between the Church performing a sacrament and a private business providing a service.

 

I agree with everything you say here except the wedding cake/photographer. You're forcing someone to support something they don't believe in. How is that not infringing on their religious beliefs? And that's not exactly some made up out of the sky thing. It's not "my religion tells me black people are the devil." It's a legitimate, well known issue for people.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I agree with everything you say here except the wedding cake/photographer. You're forcing someone to support something they don't believe in. How is that not infringing on their religious beliefs? And that's not exactly some made up out of the sky thing. It's not "my religion tells me black people are the devil." It's a legitimate, well known issue for people.

Based on this statement, would you support a business owner refusing to serve black people?

[Jenksismyhero]

Where have I argued against religious freedom? I believe I said that the Kansas law is an unnecessary waste of time.

 

Religious freedom should be a shield, not a sword. Id be against any law that said private companies cant have Christmas trees, etc. But in this case, religion is being used as a sword to attack others they dont agree with.

 

Might as well say that Christians dont have to serve Jews because they killed Christ. I mean why not?

 

Everyone has the right to believe in whatever fairy tale they want.

 

In your view...they'll obviously claim it's a shield, protecting them from having to perform a service they don't want to perform per their beliefs. I mean, they jumped the gun since Kansas currently doesn't have a law saying they HAVE to serve them, but if that day comes, and then they try to pass this law, how does it not become a shield to protect them?

[illinilaw08]

Based on this statement, would you support a business owner refusing to serve black people?

 

Or a Muslim business owner refusing to serve a woman who isn't in a burka?

[Soxbadger]

In your view...they'll obviously claim it's a shield, protecting them from having to perform a service they don't want to perform per their beliefs. I mean, they jumped the gun since Kansas currently doesn't have a law saying they HAVE to serve them, but if that day comes, and then they try to pass this law, how does it not become a shield to protect them?

 

Well they cant have both laws.

 

How can you have law A that says you have to serve them and law B that says you dont have to.

 

Seems that all you need is law A that says you have to serve them except in certain circumstances.

 

And even more to the point, is there any current issue where gay couples are forcing wedding planners to provide services? I mean isnt this just a case of freak out? Do you really think that a gay couple is going to want to pay a lot of money to someone who doesnt want to be there?

 

This is just common sense. Its like back when my parents planned my Bar Mitzvah, do you think they went to a bunch of Neo Nazis to make the centerpiece? Do you think we called up a bunch of antisemites to be the DJ?

 

Its to make gay people feel unwelcome. No matter how much window dressing there is, thats what this law is about. Its about telling gay people they arent wanted. And guess what, I dont think thats how the govt should be used.

 

Maybe Im wrong, maybe the govt should be used for every petty argument that may ever happen.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think the idea that the 2nd amendment guarantees everyone a right to carry a gun whenever and wherever they want is universally accepted or all that old. Even the rulings that say a state can't have a blanket ban on carrying don't preclude individual businesses from barring them from their property. Some states have laws that allow you carry wherever, but it's not universal and it's not something that's found in any of the federal rulings.

[Jenksismyhero]

Based on this statement, would you support a business owner refusing to serve black people?

 

No I would not support them. But, I would, in a perfect world, support their right to be a racist asshole if they really wanted to be like that.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm really struggling to see why a perfect world enables explicit racial discrimination.

[Soxbadger]

Or a Muslim business owner refusing to serve a woman who isn't in a burka?

 

What about Orthodox religions that say you cant sit on the same chair as a female that may have been on her period? Can I prevent all women from sitting on any chair because I dont want the risk?

 

Originally Posted by Leviticus 15:19-30

And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

 

 

So basically I can make a rule that women have to tell me they are on their period, because they are unclean for 7 days, and if I touch them Ill be unclean.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Or a Muslim business owner refusing to serve a woman who isn't in a burka?

You already have Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis that refuse to transport people carrying booze or with service animals.

[farmteam]

While I don't agree with him on this, I will say that Jenks made pretty clear that it comes down to how you value different Constitutional rights. He values them equally. No one save for illinilaw has really done a good job of responding to him on that main point. Like it or not, the Second Amendment exists and isn't going anywhere. Since it's admitted that there are restrictions on that right, the question really becomes what restrictions are reasonable.

[farmteam]

You already have Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis that refuse to transport people carrying booze or with service animals.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but there's been multiple times I've been carrying alcohol and had a Muslim cab driver in Minneapolis.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well they cant have both laws.

 

How can you have law A that says you have to serve them and law B that says you dont have to.

 

Seems that all you need is law A that says you have to serve them except in certain circumstances.

 

And even more to the point, is there any current issue where gay couples are forcing wedding planners to provide services? I mean isnt this just a case of freak out? Do you really think that a gay couple is going to want to pay a lot of money to someone who doesnt want to be there?

 

This is just common sense. Its like back when my parents planned my Bar Mitzvah, do you think they went to a bunch of Neo Nazis to make the centerpiece? Do you think we called up a bunch of antisemites to be the DJ?

 

Its to make gay people feel unwelcome. No matter how much window dressing there is, thats what this law is about. Its about telling gay people they arent wanted. And guess what, I dont think thats how the govt should be used.

 

Maybe Im wrong, maybe the govt should be used for every petty argument that may ever happen.

 

No, I agree with you. I think the law is an overreaction, anticipating problems that will most likely never arise.

 

And really, on top of all of this is the fact that I could say I don't want to serve you in 20 different ways that would be acceptable and not a violation of the law. You don't have to be "eww, you're gay! get out of here!"