• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kansas is Getting Dumber

Manopolus

Metaphorical Anomaly
Manopolus
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
8,738
Location
Brownbackistan
http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/06/3271717/house-committee-approves-religious.html

Am I the only one that sees a problem with "religious liberty" being interpreted in this fashion? Hell, even if you're against gay marriage this sets a rather horrifying precedent. Let's take away the single issue nature of this proposal and turn this around for a moment:

Suppose the Kansas Department of Agriculture unknowingly hires someone who is a vegetarian for religious reasons, who refuses to participate in anything pertaining to meat -- even though that happens to be a major part of their job (let's say it means they can't do ANY part of the specific job -- which is actually quite possible).

This sort legislation -- if not targeted at a very specific issue -- would prevent removing that person from such a post.

Seriously, I am thoroughly embarrassed to be living here.
 
Last edited:
Religious belief has long been the excuse to discriminate against everything for a very long time. It's gross how people will use their bibles to be evil.
 
From the link:

It has do with marriage,” Brunk said. He said that the bill protects individuals from being forced to do something “that celebrates or solemnizes in some way a marriage, whether it’s a homosexual marriage or a heterosexual marriage.
Click to expand...
If this goes through, I'd sure like to see some business or non-profit refuse to serve heterosexuals.
 
From the article

The Kansas House will move forward with a bill that would give government employees the right to refuse service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

that will be struck down on the first lawsuit to challenge it as a violation of the establishment clause.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
From the article



that will be struck down on the first lawsuit to challenge it as a violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

The article also says that the government still has to provide any legally required service, but that the specific employee can bow out. The problem, of course, is in how long it might take to find a person less prejudiced who is qualified to perform the duty in a sparsely populated rural county consisting of less than 10,000 people (which describes most of Kansas). Will the person be asked to go elsewhere to get it done at their own expense (most likely)? That could be 100 miles away in some parts of the state.
 
Last edited:
The law would also shield private businesses from discrimination lawsuits.
Click to expand...
in violation of the civil rights act.

A provision requires government agencies to still provide the requested service, but individual clerks could object to signing a marriage license, for example.
Click to expand...

They do not have that ability. If they are elected or appointed to their duties, they can not shirk their official suites.

Nope.

This will not fly.
 
And BTW, Kansas is the state that every 6 years or so elects a bunch of anti-evolutionists the the state school board.

They are due for another cycle of stupidity.
 
Manopolus said:
The article also says that the government still has to provide any legally required service, but that the specific employee can bow out. The problem, of course, is in how long it might take to find a person less prejudiced who is qualified to perform the duty in a sparsely populated rural county consisting of less than 10,000 people (which describes most of Kansas). Will the person be asked to go elsewhere to get it done at their own expense (most likely)? That could be 100 miles away in some parts of the state.
Click to expand...

That argument was already tried in Oregon. Federal court said "No. Do the job you agreed to.", for exactly the reasons stated in the second half of your post.

Of course, a few months later, the masses passed a constitutional amendment to forbid the original requested service (homosexual couple submitting a marriage license), so the suit was declared moot.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
And BTW, Kansas is the state that every 6 years or so elects a bunch of anti-evolutionists the the state school board.

They are due for another cycle of stupidity.
Click to expand...

It didn't used to be that way... the state was fairly moderate at one time (and specifically "progressive" prior to WWII). We still have a moderate-to-liberal arm of the Republican party here... so to some degree Republican doesn't always mean uberconservative in this state. There's even a large contingent of state Republicans who have endorsed Brownback's Democratic opponent for governor this year.

...but yeah, the Koch brothers and friends have sort of taken over recently. A large number of our politicians "used" to work for them and it's rather transparently corrupt.

It's sort of weird. When I was a kid, most people in my area considered "political Christianity" to be an entirely separate religion from what they talked about in church. Unfortunately, we're backsliding. I'd say even the religion here has changed for the worse. We started getting Christian Coalition sorts of folks in politics here in the early to mid '90s and not as much as you might think before that.

The split in the Republican party has always been evident here. Until recently, the more moderate wing has usually had the upper hand.
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
From the article



that will be struck down on the first lawsuit to challenge it as a violation of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...

That seems cut and dried, doesn't it? Unfortunately, I've seen too many fundies argue that the Establishment Clause only forbids governmental interference in church issues, and not the other way around (the "one way wall" argument), not to anticipate a defense along those lines. Too many fundies, I think, don't seem to get the idea that it isn't just the Establishment Clause that separates the church and the state, but the Constitution itself in all of its relevant references to the subject (TBF, I'm not sure how many of their opponents get this point either). The Test Clause forbids religion as a test for governmental service; and, more importantly, the guarantee of religious freedom implies a secular government- what other kind of government can establish for its citizens a right to practice any religion they want than one that practices none at all? This might be a matter of interpretation, sure; but mere disagreement with a reading by someone who has a vested interest in the disagreement doesn't, by itself, make the reading unreasonable.

And any governmental employee who refuses to serve a legally-recognized right in the name of his religion isn't just exercising his individual right to freedom of religion, he's using it (and his governmental position) as a privilege to impose his religious convictions on others who don't share them; this is pretty obviously in violation of their right to religious freedom. If the government can't use his religion as a test for his fitness for office, he certainly can't use it as a condition for how he will perform in it. He's violating the Constitution on not just one, but two (arguably three) counts.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
It's all about the children, you see.

In order to prevent gays from getting married, they have to force couples to stay married and have kids.
Click to expand...

To be fair, in this case I think it's an attempt to make it so lawyers can make more money from divorce cases whilst trying to score political points from the highly religious but tragically stupid part of the populace. I don't think it has anything to do with gays.

The question is, who in their right freaking mind would think that making it harder to legally divorce would keep couples together? I know a few people that are still officially married to people they haven't seen in years, as it is (because divorce would cost too much to bother, and it won't mater until they want to marry again, anyway).
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Yep. They did it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...tml?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp#sb=5143071b=facebook

It's not likely that Brownback will veto. He's the lead wingnut on "Christian" issues.
Click to expand...

Macheers, R-KS:

"Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."
Click to expand...

polls_dumbass_2632_799645_answer_2_xlarge.png


I was about to bold the operative bellow, but his whole statement is stupid.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
Yep. They did it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...tml?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp#sb=5143071b=facebook

It's not likely that Brownback will veto. He's the lead wingnut on "Christian" issues.
Click to expand...

From the article:
State Rep. Charles Macheers (R), one of the bill’s staunchest advocates, argued that the provision was designed to prevent discrimination against religious individuals during a speech on the House floor Tuesday.

"Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill," Macheers said. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."
Click to expand...

Black has officially become white. Since when is telling someone that they're obligated to do the job they're hired for "discrimination" against them? If a government employee's "religious beliefs" forbid him from allowing a Mormon foster care service, will Rep Macheers defend that? If a true-blue Christian says "I can't give unemployment benefits to a black man because of the curse of Canaan," is this ok? Where's the line drawn between where those beliefs are allowable and need "shielding" and where the beliefs become too ridiculous to merit "protection"? What metric does Macheers propose to distinguish between discrimination against state employees for their beliefs and discrimination by them based on those beliefs?
 
Last edited:
Where's the betting pool on when the lawsuit will happen? Dibs on second week of May.
 
In response to Kansas House bill 2453, I hereby establish The Church of Irony. In this religion marriage itself is a sin. Pursuant to the bill, anyone may refuse service to any married person without risk of being fired.

I don't know the exact wording of the bill, but I suspect this pretty much solves it. I can't imagine that it wouldn't.

Bonus: I've never been married, so I'm the perfect "prophet" for this new religion.

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to form an "official" church, and I'm not really the organizer type. I do know that you need at least three people who are not related as founders for your church in order to have it recognized as such by the state. It can still be a religion, I suppose... it'd be nice if it could be an official church too though... just for laughs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom