And now Kansas is getting into the act

[The Good Reverend Roger]

NO DOGS OR IRISHMEN.   

Fucking Kansas.  It's like having another Goddamn Texas.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Except it's not funny.

Every single time a post about people in America using a generalised religious discrimination clause involves people looking for reasons to play along or subvert it. That's missing the point, because the point is this is never going to be applied equally or apply to all religious preferences, the intended design of these laws are to enshrine certain mainstream religious preferences over others.

For people who are meant to be smart, it sure is fucking depressing to see.

Yeah, I suppose it's fun to fantasize but in reality it's usually very unevenly applied. However, on the plus side recently it seems that often these repressive/discriminatory state and local laws end up getting challenged in Federal court, where they are often struck down. It's all part of an ongoing process.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think maybe some people are afraid that clergy will have to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing people to perform services for something that is against their religion. If it's just flowers for their wedding, then sure, just sell them the damn flowers. But then where should I draw the line? Is performing the actual ceremony the only exempt service, or do we allow a caterer to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or a ceremonial goat sacrifice to Satan.

Shall we force Muslims to serve falafels at anti-muslim rallys, as well?

That's a spurious argument though, because clergy are not required to perform weddings at all, and can turn down a gig for any reason or no reason at all.

[Bruno]

Did you even read the text of the introduced bill?

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;

Yeah, this is clearly just about people being worried that clergy will be forced to gaymarry people.  Totally not about reducing homosexuals to second class citizens.

And this section:

othing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be
construed to authorize any governmental discrimination or penalty against
any individual or religious entity based upon its performance, facilitation
or support of any celebrations of same-gender unions or relationships.

may read like this law is an excuse for discriminatory bodies to still get government funds without any pesky problems concerning declining services.  But it's not.  Because GAY MARRIAGE OMG

I wasn't commenting on the text of the bill, just speculating about the socio-political "logic" that gave rise to the bill. I think it mostly just boils down to there being a lot of stupid assholes in Kansas.

Also in Tennessee, apparently, because now we have one of our very own.

Ours has a feature I didn't see in the Kansas version:

If a person is employed by another person and the employer requires performance of an action under (A)-(D) as a condition of employment, then the above provision will not apply to the employee.

In other words, plebes' religious views don't matter. Only rich people's religious rights are protected by this law. Poor people can either find another job, or just pray for forgiveness, I guess.

[Bruno]

I think maybe some people are afraid that clergy will have to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing people to perform services for something that is against their religion. If it's just flowers for their wedding, then sure, just sell them the damn flowers. But then where should I draw the line? Is performing the actual ceremony the only exempt service, or do we allow a caterer to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or a ceremonial goat sacrifice to Satan.

Shall we force Muslims to serve falafels at anti-muslim rallys, as well?

That's a spurious argument though, because clergy are not required to perform weddings at all, and can turn down a gig for any reason or no reason at all.

I did not know that.

One of my FB friends from the hick town where I grew up was trying to convince me that soon the federal government will be outlawing the religious institution of disfellowship/excommunication on the grounds of Civil Rights/discrimination, or something.

[Pergamos]

I think maybe some people are afraid that clergy will have to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing people to perform services for something that is against their religion. If it's just flowers for their wedding, then sure, just sell them the damn flowers. But then where should I draw the line? Is performing the actual ceremony the only exempt service, or do we allow a caterer to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or a ceremonial goat sacrifice to Satan.

Shall we force Muslims to serve falafels at anti-muslim rallys, as well?

That makes no sense.  Clergy refuse to perform weddings for all sorts of other reasons already.  They are still free to turn down inter racial marriages, if they feel it is against their religion.

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

So long as you can come up with a religious reason to discriminate against straights, sure.

:checks list of major religions:

:checks list of minor religions:

:checks list of irreligons:


Yeah, about that...

The Church of the SubGenius preaches intolerance of anybody deemed to be too normal. You could use that.

[Bruno]

I think maybe some people are afraid that clergy will have to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing people to perform services for something that is against their religion. If it's just flowers for their wedding, then sure, just sell them the damn flowers. But then where should I draw the line? Is performing the actual ceremony the only exempt service, or do we allow a caterer to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or a ceremonial goat sacrifice to Satan.

Shall we force Muslims to serve falafels at anti-muslim rallys, as well?

That makes no sense.  Clergy refuse to perform weddings for all sorts of other reasons already.  They are still free to turn down inter racial marriages, if they feel it is against their religion.

I'm betting a lot of them don't know that. I didn't until Nigel mentioned it earlier. I have actually, literally heard Christians say that they believed that the Federal government would soon be stepping in and stopping churches from kicking out members for not fulfilling their T.O.S. to Jesus, because ZOMG CIVIL RIGHTS!!!.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think maybe some people are afraid that clergy will have to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

I'm not sure how I feel about forcing people to perform services for something that is against their religion. If it's just flowers for their wedding, then sure, just sell them the damn flowers. But then where should I draw the line? Is performing the actual ceremony the only exempt service, or do we allow a caterer to refuse to cater a gay wedding, or a ceremonial goat sacrifice to Satan.

Shall we force Muslims to serve falafels at anti-muslim rallys, as well?

That makes no sense.  Clergy refuse to perform weddings for all sorts of other reasons already.  They are still free to turn down inter racial marriages, if they feel it is against their religion.

I'm betting a lot of them don't know that. I didn't until Nigel mentioned it earlier. I have actually, literally heard Christians say that they believed that the Federal government would soon be stepping in and stopping churches from kicking out members for not fulfilling their T.O.S. to Jesus, because ZOMG CIVIL RIGHTS!!!.

Clergy all know that. Trust me.

[Bruno]

Yeah, this guy wasn't clergy. I don't think he came up with it himself, though.

I think it's a thing that's out there. I said "Christians" earlier, but so far he's the only one.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, this guy wasn't clergy. I don't think he came up with it himself, though.

I think it's a thing that's out there. I said "Christians" earlier, but so far he's the only one.

I am really trying to figure out what, precisely, your point is here.

Help me out.

[Pæs]

Yeah, this guy wasn't clergy. I don't think he came up with it himself, though.

I think it's a thing that's out there. I said "Christians" earlier, but so far he's the only one.

I think the point at which you say "Yeah, I meant just one guy" is the point at which you reconsider whether you have evidence for your "I'm betting a lot of them don't know that" position, which seemed to be about the clergy?

[Bruno]

Yeah, this guy wasn't clergy. I don't think he came up with it himself, though.

I think it's a thing that's out there. I said "Christians" earlier, but so far he's the only one.

I am really trying to figure out what, precisely, your point is here.

Help me out.

Not sure my point, if I have one, is particularly precise.

There seems to be a general fear of loss of control, and some people (unjustifiably) feel that they're on some kind of slippery slope that leads straight into a Christian concentration camp, or something, and these bills seem to me to be just something for them to hold on to. After all, they're still coming down off that 8 years they had of the Bush administration, and they're going through some pretty serious withdrawls from that.

A couple weeks ago, I heard an actual clergyman speak wistfully of the days after 9/11, and suggest vaguely that maybe god had allowed it to happen because we're becoming less of a "Christian Nation".

From what I've seen, fear is a major source of motivation for a lot of the stupid things these people do. That's probably as close to a point as I'm going to be able to get.

Is that any better? I'm a little confused myself from trying to get inside these people's heads.

[Bruno]

Yeah, this guy wasn't clergy. I don't think he came up with it himself, though.

I think it's a thing that's out there. I said "Christians" earlier, but so far he's the only one.

I think the point at which you say "Yeah, I meant just one guy" is the point at which you reconsider whether you have evidence for your "I'm betting a lot of them don't know that" position, which seemed to be about the clergy?

I don't think the general population know what legal protections the clergy have, they just think that there is an army on unamerican liberal fascists coming to take away all their rights.

[Reginald Ret]

John Scalzi has an interesting point to make about these types of Christians that some of you may like:

In the comment thread of the last entry, one of the posters wondered why many fundamentalists spend so much time in Leviticus and so little time in the New Testament, and I think that's a remarkably cogent question. Indeed, it is so cogent that I would like to make the suggestion that there is an entire class of self-identified "Christians" who are not Christian at all, in the sense that they don't follow the actual teachings of Christ in any meaningful way. Rather these people nod toward Christ in a cursory fashion on their way to spend time in the bloodier books of the Bible (which tend to be found in the Old Testament), using the text selectively as a support for their own hates and prejudices, using the Bible as a cudgel rather than a door. That being the case, I suggest we stop calling these people Christians and start calling them something that befits their faith, inclinations and enthusiasms.

I say we call them Leviticans, after Leviticus, the third book of the Old Testament, famous for its rules, and also the home of the passages most likely to be thrown out by Leviticans to justify their intolerance (including, in recent days, against gays and lesbians — Leviticus Chapter 18, Verse 22: "Thou shalt not not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination").

Read the whole thing, it is quite worth it.