"Heterosexuals Only"

[averageJOE]

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)

 

[Sunstone]

If they pass that one, it's likely to be taken to the Supreme Court, where it will most likely be overturned. At least that's my take on it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is outrageous. Shame on those who came up with it and promoted it.

Are they going to allow religious groups that have racism as one of their tenants to discriminate against those of the "races" they look down on?

 

[Parsimony]

Non-smokers only? Non-alcoholics only? Honest people only? Christians only?

If you want to prevent someone from entering your establishment because they are partakers of one sin, then why not also ban all others who sin from your establishment too? Don't cherry pick. It's really not the store owner's business anyway. How is a gay guy buying stuff from you going to harm you? It's between him and God.

 

[bobhikes]

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)

Should they be able to display a sign in front of there store that says Whites Only. There is no difference. The answer is no.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Lol one step forward two steps back lol....

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I assume they would have NO problems if an anti-theists posts a "no Christians allowed" sign then?

 

[Quagmire]

I assume they would have NO problems if an anti-theists posts a "no Christians allowed" sign then?

"They" being who?

And why are you making assumptions about them?

 

[Quintessence]

I think for certain very specific types of businesses, it should be permissible. However, the sorts of businesses I feel could legitimately restrict persons based on sexuality are not exactly legal anyway (aka, brothels that want to cater to certain sexual tastes only), so...

... I'm kind of at a loss as to what the point of this would be.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

"They" being who?

And why are you making assumptions about them?

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?

 

[Quagmire]

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?

Never mind, man. And sorry: I misunderstood what you were getting at.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

No worries in the least.
I'm easily misunderstood, that's why I avoid writing in any professional aspect what so eve.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... I'm kind of at a loss as to what the point of this would be.

What is the point of discrimination or intolerance, ever? I think that's the crucial lesson; it is not rational.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well I guess this doesn't affect us asexuals.

We cake-munchers shall always prosper

 

[Sha'irullah]

What is the point of discrimination or intolerance, ever? I think that's the crucial lesson; it is not rational.

Intolerance serves a purpose for humans. As humans we have an over abundance of war minded people who are overly interested in expressing their hatred and dissatisfaction of life upon others. The enslavement of Africans probably started because some guy hundreds of years ago got robbed by 1 black man during his expedition to Africa and when he journeyed back to America he then convinced everyone that blacks were inferior.
I am not being serious with that tale but you get the drift. Humans always use other humans as whipping boys to rant and rage against for the misfortunes of themselves.

If I get mad at a heterosexual then so must everyone else.......... story of the human race

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's a little overdone, I think, because while I agree private organizations should always have this right, public organizations are constructed from an entire company, and so I think they should be allowed to at times, however permanently changes the tradition into strictism, which I am against.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

So - in like manner - can establishments owned by, or selling, the designer clothing of Gay designers, turn away rich Christian men and women?


Whatever will they wear for that charity ball in the Hamptons? :sarcastic



*

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'd like to add: If they want to ruin their business, that's their own choice.

 

[Comet]

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)

The problem with a STATE doing this is that is becomes a matter for the Supreme Court (as stated before). A private business can legally do this right now. Just as we can have a men's club or a Christian club, et al. Sadly, this will become a 9th v. 10th Amendment issue. Either way, we end up losing another one to the Federal Government! Let us see then, we've lost:
1st, battle for 2nd, nobody cares about the 3rd right now, 4th, and 5th Amendment Rights... now the 9th or 10th is lost.... So sad!

*speaking as an American*

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'd like to add: If they want to ruin their business, that's their own choice.

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

How completely retarded.