New bill passes house, will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if "it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs."
Bill can be found here (http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/hb2453/).
This isn't one of those "whip up fury, then die in committee" bills, this has passed the House 72 votes to 49, and the Senate skews hard for hate-mongering assholes.
The bill would also allow government clerks to refuse to sign same-sex marriage licenses without threat of a lawsuit.
Basically, businesses can hang up "No Fags Allowed" signs without fear of getting sued.
:dream:
\
:teabagger1:
You are aware that the way this is worded works both ways? This is going to be hilarious! I'm imagining some civil servant refusing to marry straight people.
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...
Sincerely held religious belief = Jebus.
Quote from: :regret: on February 13, 2014, 02:10:31 PM
You are aware that the way this is worded works both ways? This is going to be hilarious! I'm imagining some civil servant refusing to marry straight people.
Sappho be praised!
Interestingly, a federal judge recently rules that Kentucky MUST recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/kentucky-must-recognize-gay-marriages-from-other-states-federal-judge-rules/2014/02/12/8ec79508-9410-11e3-b46a-5a3d0d2130da_story.html
Jesus doesn't even recognise those other states. Is TAXACHUSSETTS in the Bible? No, exactly. Ipso facto, out of state gays should go back WHERE THEY CAME FROM (hell).
Wahoo. Jim Crow for gays.
Get me off this fucking planet.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 13, 2014, 02:26:50 PM
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...
Church of Euthanasia, it's against their religion to have children and straight marriage encourages procreation.
What part of "sincere religious conviction = Jesus" are you retards struggling with?
maybe somebody is struggling with the "joke" part, chill bro
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.
This is a very good point. Remember the church of satan guy and his idea to subvert a similar fucked up law?
How far did he get?
Fucking with repressive laws tends to accomplish little. You either need mass appeal against such action (Unlikely as we're talking about the US here) or it will generally become acceptable to the popular mindset. The fact the law passed anyway indicates that it is acceptable to the general population.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2014, 09:07:39 AM
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.
I gave up hope of improving anything about this fucked up world.
All I do now is laugh when someone gets hurt or is going to get hurt and try to find ways to hurt people within this new system.
It is not sane but it is all i have left.
Not to mention that if someone from the Church of Euthenasia (if Korda is even still doing that) tried to "subvert" the law, they'd have to bring a suit against the state, and keep appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then win.
Which, when I do a rough probability estimate, no one who really believes in the Four Pillars of "Suicide, Abortion, Cannabalism, and Sodomy" could ever afford to do, or even be taken seriously in a court of law.
I would suggest that if you really do believe in those 4 pillars you probably spend a significant effort keeping yourself out of court.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2014, 09:07:39 AM
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.
Excellent point.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 14, 2014, 09:36:34 AM
This is a very good point. Remember the church of satan guy and his idea to subvert a similar fucked up law?
How far did he get?
Fucking with repressive laws tends to accomplish little. You either need mass appeal against such action (Unlikely as we're talking about the US here) or it will generally become acceptable to the popular mindset. The fact the law passed anyway indicates that it is acceptable to the general population.
He got further than anyone...
...which is to say he spent the last decades of his life in seclusion and Black House was turned into condos 3 years ago or so.
Ha. Ha.
So, yeah.
6 years.
(http://i.imgur.com/FTmXTHN.jpg)
ETA: This ougt to be in its own seperate.thread. I will think on it amd do just that.
Is it just me, or is there a rise of willful ignorance in the Info Age?
It seems, since people can pick and choose patterns out of huge swathes of data, many are choosing to ignore the ample amounts of logical, science based.variety, because they can. There are large online communities that cater to their preconceived notions and amolify them. People take pride in creationsism a bit more because it no longer comes from one moldy old, difficult to parse book, or a preacher who may or may not have charisma.
There are a lot more rational people for much the same reason, but...anti-vaccers in droves.
Luckily, all it will take are a few brave people and a lawyer looking to make a name. Based upon Windsor, I think all state supreme courts at this point have ruled in favor of equality.
Alty, I was thinking about the other church of satan guy, alive, did something relatively recently along similar lines. I forget his name but it was something awful Evil Mcbadperson or whatever. I actually forgot about Laveys various idiocies but I'm sure misguided fucking with the legal system will feature somewhere and further illustrate the point.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 14, 2014, 12:59:58 PM
Not to mention that if someone from the Church of Euthenasia (if Korda is even still doing that) tried to "subvert" the law, they'd have to bring a suit against the state, and keep appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then win.
Which, when I do a rough probability estimate, no one who really believes in the Four Pillars of "Suicide, Abortion, Cannabalism, and Sodomy" could ever afford to do, or even be taken seriously in a court of law.
Seems like the straights that he or she chose not to srve wuld be the ones that would have to bring suit.
Quote from: Junkenstein on February 14, 2014, 07:53:39 PM
Alty, I was thinking about the other church of satan guy, alive, did something relatively recently along similar lines. I forget his name but it was something awful Evil Mcbadperson or whatever. I actually forgot about Laveys various idiocies but I'm sure misguided fucking with the legal system will feature somewhere and further illustrate the point.
The one trying to build a state at that courthouse with the ten commandments?
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2014, 09:07:39 AM
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.
You are right of course, and I should take more of an interest in it what with Ireland renewing the Blaspheme law two years ago. It just shows the secular grip on the entire legal and cultural systems. Over the last few weeks we have seen our media buckle and pay out a sum to the Iona institute when a guest correctly called out a homophobic journalist on air as being a homophobe.
I'd call him worse then that: worthless, a bigot, devoid of journalistic ability or integrity, excrement. But calling him a homophobe when he has a long documented history of homophobia is apparently taboo.
Why go to all the trouble to make it a religious exemption? Why not just "Because I don't want to." What's wrong with that?
Why the need for an elaborate explanation involving very old stories?
What makes something a religion? What about sincerely held philosophical beliefs? Does it have to involve beliefs concerning the afterlife, or can you just believe anything you can't prove?
It really makes much more sense when you look at it as just people trying to grant themselves special privileges.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 16, 2014, 02:19:06 AM
Why go to all the trouble to make it a religious exemption? Why not just "Because I don't want to." What's wrong with that?
I'd say that it adds another layer of argument from authority. Beliefs are given legitimacy just because they've been around for long enough and it's an effort to protect themselves against the modern age. "We're right because law and jebus" works much better as a method of control because it lets you drag the argument down from reality and invoke an arbitrary authority figure which agrees with you.
It's like a get out of jail free card in the legal system and it will inevitably be used in all sorts of fucked up ways.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 14, 2014, 06:52:28 PM
Luckily, all it will take are a few brave people and a lawyer looking to make a name. Based upon Windsor, I think all state supreme courts at this point have ruled in favor of equality.
Tru dat. Despite valiant attempts at standing athwart history, yelling "SODOMITES R GOIN 2 HELL LOLZ", this aint gonna work. I think even the Kansas Senate has said they're not going to pass this.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 16, 2014, 02:19:06 AM
Why go to all the trouble to make it a religious exemption? Why not just "Because I don't want to." What's wrong with that?
Because people can argue against that, with things like "well if it's a public service then maybe people have to a right to that service, regardless of where they stick their dick and if people loathe homosexuals that much maybe they should get jobs where they don't have to interact with them?"
But if God's involved, well then, it's a moral obligation. People aren't just being contrary bigots, they have deep and strongly held religious convictions as to why their bigotry must be excused. Do you hate freedom of religion? You thought-policing bigot, you. For shame.
The real irony is the Bible says nothing about homosexuality anyway, and when correctly translated, that pesky Leviticus article really says "men are not allowed to use a woman's bed for guy-only sexytiem". Because Hebrew property rights with regard to women are, apparently, pretty damn strict and stuff, and using her bed like that is considered a violation of her ownership. Oh, and there is Paul, but I think we can all agree, Paul had some...problems.
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?
Did you even read the text of the introduced bill?
QuoteNotwithstanding 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:
Quoteothing 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
Thanks for clarifications ITT, Cain. Hadn't had a chance to check the full text, so was casually skimming this thread after every update, good to see those quotes.
For a given definition of "good", of course. :sad:
NO DOGS OR IRISHMEN. :lulz:
Fucking Kansas. It's like having another Goddamn Texas.
Quote from: Cain on February 14, 2014, 09:07:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 16, 2014, 07:38:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on February 16, 2014, 10:04:23 PM
Did you even read the text of the introduced bill?
QuoteNotwithstanding 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:
Quoteothing 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 (http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/BillSummaryArchive.aspx?BillNumber=SB2566&ga=108).
Ours has a feature I didn't see in the Kansas version:
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Volvulus Skin Sacs on February 17, 2014, 07:37:46 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 16, 2014, 07:38:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 16, 2014, 07:38:25 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 13, 2014, 02:26:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Pergamos on February 22, 2014, 11:30:03 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 16, 2014, 07:38:25 PM
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!!!.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 24, 2014, 04:58:25 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on February 22, 2014, 11:30:03 AM
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 16, 2014, 07:38:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 25, 2014, 09:59:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 25, 2014, 09:59:05 AM
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?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 25, 2014, 02:23:24 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 25, 2014, 09:59:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Pæs on February 25, 2014, 08:34:39 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 25, 2014, 09:59:05 AM
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.
John Scalzi has an interesting point to make about these types of Christians that some of you may like:
Quote from: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2004/02/24/leviticans/
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.
In my experience the argument from religious freedom wrt TEH GAYS is made in the full knowledge that they won't be forced to marry them, but in the hopes that they can convince that it will impinge on their right to run their things the way they would like.
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 25, 2014, 08:43:16 PM
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".
:lulz:
What fucking God does HE worship? Hachiman?
Quote from: Pæs on February 25, 2014, 08:47:46 PM
In my experience the argument from religious freedom wrt TEH GAYS is made in the full knowledge that they won't be forced to marry them, but in the hopes that they can convince that it will impinge on their right to run their things the way they would like.
Actually, it's the hope that they can bash them, shove them back in the closet, and have someone that is permanently lower on the totem pole than they are.
There's no prettying that up.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 25, 2014, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on February 25, 2014, 08:43:16 PM
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".
:lulz:
What fucking God does HE worship? Hachiman?
Apparently the one who told the jews they would be undefeatable in battle, then when they got their asses handed to them told them "Yeah, well, some guy opened a banana from the wrong end or something, you should probably find him and kill him AND his family, then everything will be cool again"