"Heterosexuals Only"

[dawny0826]

And thanks to this law (if it had passed), such a lawsuit would fail.

Not necessarily. If a business owner is being sued on the basis of discrimination, both parties still have to support their position.

Why should it matter?

It's counter productive to invest in that which oppresses you, is it not?

Because Steve is a hypothetical character who I invented.

Oh yes. I forgot.

Personally, I believe the moment Steve mentions his disdain for gays, that's the moment that the accommodation goes out the window.

Your arguments in this thread have demonstrated a misunderstanding of the law.

Funny, I felt your arguments demonstrated the same.

Regardless, you do recognize that it undermines an employer's ability to, as you put it, "refrain from hiring someone who could not do the job needed", right?

The way the law was written, a person could recognize at the outset that the job conflicts with their religious beliefs, hide this fact from their employer, and then be protected against dismissal when they refuse to do what they know they'll be asked to do.

Legally, employers already have the right to hold their employees accountable to performance standards. In other words, the employer can't discriminate against the employee, but, the employee is not exempt from meeting the requirements of the position.

If all of a sudden employee refuses to do a task and chaulks it up to a religious belief, the employer cannot deny the employee the opportunity to conform to whatever religious belief it is, but, if such behavior or action causes undue hardship to the employer, from a legal perspective, it may be perceived that the employer is being disadvantaged.

There are lawyers who specialize in discrimination law and can advise employers or employees, if either feel that their rights have been infringed upon.

 

[averageJOE]

The bill was:

Which is blatant bias and hypocrisy. The bill made it a point to single out gay marriage and totally ignores every other act that goes against religion, namely Christianity. A bridal shop would refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian getting married, but would have no problem selling a dress to a woman on her third wedding, or a woman who had a child out of wed lock.

 

[dawny0826]

Which is blatant bias and hypocrisy. The bill made it a point to single out gay marriage and totally ignores every other act that goes against religion, namely Christianity. A bridal shop would refuse to sell a dress to a lesbian getting married, but would have no problem selling a dress to a woman on her third wedding, or a woman who had a child out of wed lock.

I don't completely disagree with you.

Considering that gay marriage isn't legal in Kansas, I found the bill to be particulary "excessive".

Doesn't mean that I can't see valid points, however. I respect your right to disagree.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Its actually sort of too bad the law didn't pass; if it had, it would likely have spelled doom for the anti-gay rights movement, and would inevitably have been overturned anyways, as it was clearly and painfully unconstitutional.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Its actually sort of too bad the law didn't pass; if it had, it would likely have spelled doom for the anti-gay rights movement, and would inevitably have been overturned anyways, as it was clearly and painfully unconstitutional.

What kind of surprises me is that the loudest outcry against laws like these aren't coming from the rep. Christians that do disagree with it.
How do they not get that blatantly unconstitutional, discriminatory laws like this will chase away the mid-line voters and undecided en masse..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarily. If a business owner is being sued on the basis of discrimination, both parties still have to support their position.

But this particular law would provide the business with a defense against the lawsuit.

It's counter productive to invest in that which oppresses you, is it not?

I meant in terms of rights. Why should that change the legal obligations of the parish hall? I'm not sure why a gay couple would choose that as their reception venue, but I think that the hall should be required to treat all couples that seek to rent it equitably, including the gay couples.

Oh yes. I forgot.

Personally, I believe the moment Steve mentions his disdain for gays, that's the moment that the accommodation goes out the window.

And in this law, his disdain for gays would be legally protected... as long as he can claim that it's based in his religious beliefs.

Legally, employers already have the right to hold their employees accountable to performance standards. In other words, the employer can't discriminate against the employee, but, the employee is not exempt from meeting the requirements of the position.

If all of a sudden employee refuses to do a task and chaulks it up to a religious belief, the employer cannot deny the employee the opportunity to conform to whatever religious belief it is, but, if such behavior or action causes undue hardship to the employer, from a legal perspective, it may be perceived that the employer is being disadvantaged.

And if this law had passed, then Kansas employers would not have been able to take action against the employee, despite this undue hardship.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

What kind of surprises me is that the loudest outcry against laws like these aren't coming from the rep. Christians that do disagree with it.
How do they not get that blatantly unconstitutional, discriminatory laws like this will chase away the mid-line voters and undecided en masse..

I actually think that's more or less what happened here; after flying through the Senate, I think the (also Republican dominated) Senate realized they had to hit the brakes after hearing the response to the bill, at least partially due to objections from moderates. It seems like pretty much everyone save the hardcore fundamentalist anti-gay right realized what a crock this bill was which, on the one hand is a good sign, but on the other is sort of unfortunate as I mentioned, because that could've all but put the nail in the coffin of the anti-gay rights movement.

 

[dawny0826]

But this particular law would provide the business with a defense against the lawsuit.

I'm thinking that much would be contingent upon the specific allegations. I agree with you but I have no idea what this would look like in court.

I meant in terms of rights. Why should that change the legal obligations of the parish hall?

It shouldn't.

I'm not sure why a gay couple would choose that as their reception venue, but I think that the hall should be required to treat all couples that seek to rent it equitably, including the gay couples.

Agreed.

And in this law, his disdain for gays would be legally protected... as long as he can claim that it's based in his religious beliefs.

The bill didn't specifically touch on how this would work. I can only assume that the state's discrimination laws would remain intact, save this addition/change.

I'm not sure how this would pan out in a real life scenario.

And if this law had passed, then Kansas employers would not have been able to take action against the employee, despite this undue hardship.

There was nothing in the bill that stated that an employer couldn't penalize an employee for not fulfilling their duties. As I mentioned, even when accommodating a religious belief, if such accommodation yields undue hardship to an employer, the employer does have the advantage if the employee decides to sue. But, this has to be demonstrated via evidence. This law doesn't replace other laws nor does it null the rights of the employer.

I'm not a lawyer. But, I do work in management and have fired employees. You document every incident, every conversation, every write up, everything...so that if you do go to court, you have a solid paper trail to justify the actions that you've taken as an employer.

The employee has the right to religious freedom. The business owner has the right to operate as unencumbered as possible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There was nothing in the bill that stated that an employer couldn't penalize an employee for not fulfilling their duties.

Yes, there is. Or rather, the bill implies that such penalties would be unenforceable if challenged:

Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by
an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in
section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in:
(1) A civil claim or cause of action under state or local law based
upon such refusal;

 

[ChristineES]

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)

I don't think it will be passed. If it does, I doubt it will stay in affect for very long. Even Christians are not allowed to discriminate.

 

[averageJOE]

Arizona is looking to pass a similar bill. Arizona

Why do people want to regress society?

 

[dawny0826]

Yes, there is. Or rather, the bill implies that such penalties would be unenforceable if challenged:

Only, I'm making assumptions as to how this would apply to the employer/employee dynamic as the bill doesn't specifically touch on that.

There are already federal discrimination laws in place. This type of law (and it was just bill, not passed as law) could not legally allow for discrimination. I would imagine that anyone employer, constituent or otherwise could build a case regardless, if they felt that they were being discriminated against.

The section that you've quoted was specific to those religious entities and businesses.

Within the same section, specific services are cited.

 

[Ingledsva]

...


Is it preferential treatment to provide specific access to someone with a handicap or functional or access support need? No. They require this accommodation.


You're being unfair. How do you know that Steve can't stand the gay people? Being bound to specific practices as per a faith doesn't mean that Steve can't stand gay people.



...

Christians agreeing with this type of bill haven't answered the question implied in several of the replies.


How is doing normal business with a gay person a sin?



Answer - IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!


If it is not a sin - then why do you expect special treatment for your - personal homophobia?



*

 

[Slapstick]

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)

Segregation all over again for the retards that live in Kansas and Arkansas, it goes against the 14th amendment.

Amendment 14: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It goes against the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights as well. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It goes against the entire Amendment of separation of church and state.

If I lived in Kansas, which I’m glad I don’t. I would take about 100 copies of the proposed bill where it is being voted on and drafted, pull out my lighter and burn all 100 copies page by page then spit on and dump on a representatives lawn / house and tell them its their trash.

While a more subtle approach would be to have whoever drafted this and is trying to pass it too resign on grounds of not upholding their constitutional duties.

Also, I’m no lawyer, but have taken some law and political science classes, and if this were to pass, the first time anyone is denied any type of service, then it would be taken to a civil court. All anyone has to do is find out what their religion is, and the business would be sued to hell in a hand basket and they would no longer be in business. This is enough to make any “heterosexual” as you put, move to Kansas or Arkansas and pose as a gay person just to get filthy rich on those states on stupidity. While I don't agree with the bill. I think it would be a good thing if it is passed to remind the rest of Americans that our society is not ran or controlled religious ideologies. I actually think if something like this is passed then it would be the end of religion as we (anyone) knows it.

 

[dawny0826]

Christians agreeing with this type of bill haven't answered the question implied in several of the replies.


How is doing normal business with a gay person a sin?



Answer - IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!


If it is not a sin - then why do you expect special treatment for your - personal homophobia?



*

I should hope you aren't make presumptions about what I believe.

I'm of the opinion that these laws are unnecessary and I do not condone discrimination.

However, upon reading the bill in Kansas and the law in AZ, I've not construed the bill and law in the same manner that others have and have offered a different perspective, which folks can agree or disagree with.

I don't see profit and benefit in exclusivity, personally.

 

[Ingledsva]

Christians agreeing with this type of bill haven't answered the question implied in several of the replies.


How is doing normal business with a gay person a sin?



Answer - IT ISN'T!!!!!!!!


If it is not a sin - then why do you expect special treatment for your - personal homophobia?

I should hope you aren't make presumptions about what I believe.

I'm of the opinion that these laws are unnecessary and I do not condone discrimination.

However, upon reading the bill in Kansas and the law in AZ, I've not construed the bill and law in the same manner that others have and have offered a different perspective, which folks can agree or disagree with.

I don't see profit and benefit in exclusivity, personally.

I'll ask AGAIN - since you are beating around the bush!


How is making a cake, or flowers, or a dress, etc, for a homosexual couple, a sin for a Christian? How are normal services - that you automatically provide to other "sinners", going against your Christian religious rights?


HOW???????


Christians that are for these bills are hypocrites.



*

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How is making a cake, or flowers, or a dress, etc, for a homosexual couple, a sin for a Christian? How are normal services - that you automatically provide to other sinners, going against your Christian religious rights?

A very good point. Frubals for you.

 

[averageJOE]

I'll ask AGAIN - since you are beating around the bush!


How is making a cake, or flowers, or a dress, etc, for a homosexual couple, a sin for a Christian? How are normal services - that you automatically provide to other sinners, going against your Christian religious rights?


HOW???????


Christians that are for these bills are hypocrites.



*

I agree. It's hypocrisy at its finest. I posted something similar as well.

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.

 

[dawny0826]

I'll ask AGAIN - since you are beating around the bush!


How is making a cake, or flowers, or a dress, etc, for a homosexual couple, a sin for a Christian? How are normal services - that you automatically provide to other sinners, going against your Christian religious rights?


HOW???????


Christians that are for these bills are hypocrites.



*

There are some who believe that you cannot directly contribute to sinful action. A homosexual wedding would be an "abomination" and they could not directly support it.

I agree that this bill drips of hypocricy, but, I also take issue with people forgetting that people, Christian or otherwise, have the consitutional right to practice these belief systems, regardless as to how outlandish some may construe them and regardless as to how much they are hated in the process.

In a practical appliction, I fail to see how in many scenarios discrimination would have to factor in at all.

"I'm sorry. We're booked on these dates, but, I'd like to refer you to an excellent photographer in the area who can meet your needs."

or

"I'm sorry. I'm not available on this date, but, I have an excellent photographer who can meet your needs."

As for restaurants, housing and other establishments, the current anti-discrimination, anti-segregation, equal employment and fair housing laws in the state are not voided by this law. So, anyone who feels that they are being discriminated against can file complaint as per process. Unless one being accused could demonstrate that their actions are justified as per a deeply held religious belief, they may not qualify for injunction.

This law isn't necessary, as such laws are already in place and anti-discrimination laws should also cover the religious.

I assure the non religious are chock full of their fair share of hateful, bigoted hypocrites too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As for restaurants, housing and other establishments, the current anti-discrimination, anti-segregation, equal employment and fair housing laws in the state are not voided by this law.

What makes you so sure of this?

It seems to me that these sorts of "religious freedom" laws are in conflict with existing laws, but I think it's far from certain how the conflict will be resolved. Which law takes precedence will probably have to be sorted out by the courts.