"Heterosexuals Only"

[MD]

Although I am completely against this law and believe this to be wrong, why are the liberals here against it as well? It's consenting adults doing what they want. If you can defend incest, why not prejudice?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well that's the really curious part... Why would anyone intentionally turn away business? As a (misguided) moral stand?

How completely retarded.

I don't think they intentionally want to ruin their business, but I would bet that most would put their beliefs before their career

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I don't think they intentionally want to ruin their business, but I would bet that most would put their beliefs before their career

I don't know about intentionally "ruining" their business, but excluding a particular demographic is intentionally turning away business.

 

[Ingledsva]

Although I am completely against this law and believe this to be wrong, why are the liberals here against it as well? It's consenting adults doing what they want. If you can defend incest, why not prejudice?

Pray tell? How are liberals here defending incest?



*

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Although I am completely against this law and believe this to be wrong, why are the liberals here against it as well? It's consenting adults doing what they want. If you can defend incest, why not prejudice?

Well, for one thing, this law allows state employees to refuse to do their job based in discrimination.
That includes doctors, police, firefighters...

I'd rather not see the follow up to this law bring "firefighters can refuse to help someone if they suspect them of being atheist"..

Aside from the simple "this law is unconstitutional" aspect.

 

[roger1440]

A new bill in Kansas that is trying to be passed wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) if it goes against their religious beliefs.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

What's your take on this? Do you think it should be a business owners right to display a sign on their front window that says "Heterosexuals Only"? (Not that they would actually do that. But essentially gives them the right to do so)

Hmm, do blacks have to sit in the back of the bus again?

 

[LuisDantas]

Wow. I have rarely seen a more direct violation of basic civil right and of the separation between church and state together in such a short text.

It seems to make a point of specifically mentioning marriages and even same-sex marriages, though. While the text is utter garbage, it still betrays an intention to protect government officers from acknowledging same-sex marriages as valid, all the while avoiding actually denying those marriages their validity.

It is however so darned abrangent that it can't be even seriously considered. I wonder if it was ever meant to; it may instead be just a statement of some sort.

 

[averageJOE]

My apologies.
They being the people who feel passing a law making discrimination legal as long as is based on religious beliefs.

Will this be only Christian beliefs that get this protection, and only on the subject of homosexuality, or are all religions and religious beliefs allowed the same protections granted by this bill.

And does this bill cover federal or state workers? If a gay man is being mugged, and the police officer who responds is a Christian, can he refuse to intervene?

House on fire? Can the firemen refuse to put it out if its owned by a professed gay man our woman?

The answer to your questions: yes.

Here's an extreme example (not saying that this will happen, but this bill could allow this to happen): A man gets physically assaulted on the street by a group of 4 guys for being gay. After getting out of the hospital he goes to the police to make a statement and press charges for a hate crime. The police turn him away because he is gay.

 

[oldbadger]

A new bill in Kansas that is trying to be passed wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) if it goes against their religious beliefs.

Hi....!

Bills like this get presented in American States quite often, I think?

This particular Bill is a perfect example because news about it will go 'viral' in a very short time. The proposers get masses of attention and the idea gets publicised all over.

It's like a form of high-level advertising where the press and media automatically stuff it into their editorial program for massive high-level publicity...... for free!!

Costs........ little or nothing........

 

[MysticSang'ha]

A new bill in Kansas that is trying to be passed wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) if it goes against their religious beliefs.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

What's your take on this? Do you think it should be a business owners right to display a sign on their front window that says "Heterosexuals Only"? (Not that they would actually do that. But essentially gives them the right to do so)

"Or anyone for that matter".....I think that's an important point that is easily missed. Which makes this bill even more outrageous than in already is.

Part of the heading of the bill regarding deeply held religious beliefs when it comes to sex and gender. It means single fathers might not be able to find a day care center for their children. It means women might not be able to find contraception.

The bill doesn't just target same sex marriage, but establishing an overall blanket law that allows archaic sexual roles in society. It opens the door to child marriage, revoking marital rape protections, and revisits sodomy laws.

Bigots need to be careful of what they wish for.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Although I am completely against this law and believe this to be wrong, why are the liberals here against it as well? It's consenting adults doing what they want. If you can defend incest, why not prejudice?

How are people who are barred from entry consenting adults? If a same sex couple is prohibited from finding a place to live, how are they consenting to being prohibited?

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's look at a more complicated issue of discrimination in a public accommodation.
(Like me legalize?)
Is it reasonable to give a senior citizen, student, woman, child or veteran a discount at a store.
(Note: In my town, to do so is a violation of the Human Rights Ordinance, but political will prevents enforcement)
This price differential is discrimination-lite, but should it be legal?
Would a discount for disadvantaged races or same sex couples be fair or legal?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's look at a more complicated issue of discrimination in a public accommodation.
(Like me legalize?)
Is it reasonable to give a senior citizen, student, woman, child or veteran a discount at a store.
(Note: In my town, to do so is a violation of the Human Rights Ordinance, but political will prevents enforcement)
This price differential is discrimination-lite, but should it be legal?
Would a discount for disadvantaged races or same sex couples be fair or legal?

I don't give student, senior, or military discounts, though close to the Air Force base it's typical for businesses to offer military discounts. I've had a couple of older clients ask if I offer senior discounts and have went elsewhere when I've stated that I don't offer the discount.

The only discount I offer is when clients take advantage of the online payment option. It's open to anyone who can get online. I also give referral rewards for returning students when they refer others to sign up (yay, management software that automates that!).

I do think it's a soft form of discrimination, though not at the same level of barring whole demographics from acting as patrons. Usually these discounts are offered at 10% of the total sale price.

 

[Revoltingest]

I too have a general policy of giving discounts only based upon payment form.
(But I also negotiate individual deals ad hoc.)

 

[SkylarHunter]

Do people in Kansas walk around with neon signs saying they're gay or are the business owners going to put a guard at the door and make every customer sign a document declaring their sexual orientation which is completely irrelevant for the business anyway?

 

[LuisDantas]

Do people in Kansas walk around with neon signs saying they're gay or are the business owners going to put a guard at the door and make every customer sign a document declaring their sexual orientation which is completely irrelevant for the business anyway?

Homosexual couples may get in trouble with PDAs (public displays of affection).

 

[Quintessence]

Homosexual couples may get in trouble with PDAs (public displays of affection).

Along with heterosexual friends who engage in PDA.

Look out guys! That friend of your same sex you haven't seen in years and want to meet over coffee? You'd better not give them a big bear hug when you see them in that shop. They'll throw you out as a homosexual.

 

[Penumbra]

A new bill in Kansas that is trying to be passed wants to make it legal for businesses to refuse service to homosexuals (or anyone for that matter) if it goes against their religious beliefs.

http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

What's your take on this? Do you think it should be a business owners right to display a sign on their front window that says "Heterosexuals Only"? (Not that they would actually do that. But essentially gives them the right to do so)

If it passes there, it'll likely get struck down by a federal judge.

People can be so petty.

 

[oldbadger]

Let's look at a more complicated issue of discrimination in a public accommodation.
(Like me legalize?)
Is it reasonable to give a senior citizen, student, woman, child or veteran a discount at a store.
(Note: In my town, to do so is a violation of the Human Rights Ordinance, but political will prevents enforcement)
This price differential is discrimination-lite, but should it be legal?
Would a discount for disadvantaged races or same sex couples be fair or legal?

The European Union is going slightly bonkers over similar stuff, but it has lost its marbles on this one.

Insurance companies have always measured young female drivers to be several times less likely to be at fault in road-traffic accidents and so their premiums reflected this, but the EU legislated that this was a form of discrimination and legislated that Insurance companies may no longer adjust premiums by gender. Of course, the insurers just whacked up the premiums for women drivers to those of male drivers....... extra money in for no extra risk.

Not fair, not sensible, not economical, ........ simply wrong.


EDIT:- An' I never stole yer shovel..... all porky-pies.

 

[averageJOE]

"Or anyone for that matter".....I think that's an important point that is easily missed. Which makes this bill even more outrageous than in already is.

Part of the heading of the bill regarding deeply held religious beliefs when it comes to sex and gender. It means single fathers might not be able to find a day care center for their children. It means women might not be able to find contraception.

The bill doesn't just target same sex marriage, but establishing an overall blanket law that allows archaic sexual roles in society. It opens the door to child marriage, revoking marital rape protections, and revisits sodomy laws.

Bigots need to be careful of what they wish for.

What I think it would do is expose these peoples hypocrisy. An owner of a bridle shop would deny selling a bridle gown to a lesbian getting married, but would turn around and have no problem selling a dress to a woman getting ready for her third wedding.