Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 1
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+30 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Wow. So now we can all rest easy knowing that gay people won't be eating next to us in the greasy hillbilly spoon down the street when we visit Kansas.

They just passed Bill 2453 which allows businesses to ban gay couples. IT PASSED! I guess if you are nostalgic and you want to relive a bit of the Jim Crow era prejudices, you know have a destination resort right there in Kansas.

Story


On Wednesday, Kansas' Republican-dominated House passed Bill 2453, which makes it legal for individuals, groups, and businesses to refuse services for same-sex couples if they believe it goes against their religious beliefs to do so.

Though the bill claims that it "protects the rights of religious people," some people of faith are against it, explaining that legalizing discrimination doesn't protect religious freedom at all.


So there you have it. Straight up discrimination. And it's to "protect rights" of Christians. Am I allowed to ban Christians from a store? NO! I had to look this up on Snopes because I thought it was a parody article. But it's true.




posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Was it Kansas or Oklahoma that had that one restaurant run by a guy that hated blacks, Mexicans, gays, poor people and promised his patron they could eat without the presence of these "scum"?



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 





IT PASSED!


Knew it would!

Let the bitter vitriol begin!


THE 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;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid
edit on 16-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Just wait for this law to be challenged in court. It probably won't even make it to the SOTUS before being overturned on grounds of unconstitutionality.


+13 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Cuervo
Wow. So now we can all rest easy knowing that gay people won't be eating next to us in the greasy hillbilly spoon down the street when we visit Kansas.

They just passed Bill 2453 which allows businesses to ban gay couples. IT PASSED! I guess if you are nostalgic and you want to relive a bit of the Jim Crow era prejudices, you know have a destination resort right there in Kansas.

Story


On Wednesday, Kansas' Republican-dominated House passed Bill 2453, which makes it legal for individuals, groups, and businesses to refuse services for same-sex couples if they believe it goes against their religious beliefs to do so.

Though the bill claims that it "protects the rights of religious people," some people of faith are against it, explaining that legalizing discrimination doesn't protect religious freedom at all.


So there you have it. Straight up discrimination. And it's to "protect rights" of Christians. Am I allowed to ban Christians from a store? NO! I had to look this up on Snopes because I thought it was a parody article. But it's true.


You have the right to refuse service to anyone as a business owner. It's not just a "no shirt no shoes no service" policy -- if you want to lose business by turning away christians (btw, how would you go about that..just asking people at the door to state their religious preference? sounds good to me) then go for it, assuming you're comfortable with losing money and or whatever repercussions come from your store/business being known to exclude certain groups eg: vandalism.

The notion of this being acceptable in 2014 is another story which i have no interest debating because I don't think laws should be passed at a city/state/fed level. If you want to personally regulate your specific business or business chains then go for it


+10 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
It's really common sense.

States and Countries that choose Conservative politics will, by definition NOT move forward.


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


I only hope you are right.

I am glad I live in Washington. I'm not gay, but I really hate discrimination. Its such a pathetic waste of time.


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
If I were an American I would just draw a line through the middle and call the south Racistbigotland, and be done with it. Why waste any more time and energy on these fools? You want to progress? You want peace? It won't happen as long as you allow backward politicians to have any kind of 'power'.


+28 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
 


This law is a clear example of why religion should never have any say in government.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


While I dont really agree with this law

I thought all businesses had the right to refuse service to anyone

I know if you are homeless and look the part some places wont let you enter

Just a question.

Eta I ask this as a bisexual homeless man.
edit on pm220142808America/ChicagoSun, 16 Feb 2014 20:10:38 -0600_2u by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


Ahh, "moving forward", it's the new "hope and change".


+10 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:10 PM
link   

ThinkYouSpeak

Cuervo
Wow. So now we can all rest easy knowing that gay people won't be eating next to us in the greasy hillbilly spoon down the street when we visit Kansas.

They just passed Bill 2453 which allows businesses to ban gay couples. IT PASSED! I guess if you are nostalgic and you want to relive a bit of the Jim Crow era prejudices, you know have a destination resort right there in Kansas.

Story


On Wednesday, Kansas' Republican-dominated House passed Bill 2453, which makes it legal for individuals, groups, and businesses to refuse services for same-sex couples if they believe it goes against their religious beliefs to do so.

Though the bill claims that it "protects the rights of religious people," some people of faith are against it, explaining that legalizing discrimination doesn't protect religious freedom at all.


So there you have it. Straight up discrimination. And it's to "protect rights" of Christians. Am I allowed to ban Christians from a store? NO! I had to look this up on Snopes because I thought it was a parody article. But it's true.


You have the right to refuse service to anyone as a business owner. It's not just a "no shirt no shoes no service" policy -- if you want to lose business by turning away christians (btw, how would you go about that..just asking people at the door to state their religious preference? sounds good to me) then go for it, assuming you're comfortable with losing money and or whatever repercussions come from your store/business being known to exclude certain groups eg: vandalism.

The notion of this being acceptable in 2014 is another story which i have no interest debating because I don't think laws should be passed at a city/state/fed level. If you want to personally regulate your specific business or business chains then go for it



The problem with that mentality is that none of these businesses are on private islands. They are supplied by roads I pay for, protected by police I pay for, and is being supported by money created by our public economy. Therefore they do not have the right to exclude certain demographics if the public says they can't. This is why segregation ended. That's called prejudice.

If you want to run a business with only rich white straight guys allowed, buy an island. But if you are playing in our yard (the US), you play by our rules. Many of our rules are against discrimination. It's perfectly reasonable.


+17 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Ramcheck
 


Really dude!? The south has more interracial couples than the north does!!! That is a poor stereotype and Kansas isn't considered south.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by agentblue
 


Oh really 'dude'? Ok well maybe they should go out and vote together with sound mind, and get rid of these ultra conservative idiots that run these cities into the ground.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by Cuervo
 





IT PASSED!


Knew it would!

Let the bitter vitriol begin!


THE 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;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or
similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar
arrangement as valid
edit on 16-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)


"(b)" is the only one on there that makes sense. No, a pastor should not have to marry a gay couple if it's against his religion. But it is NOT against anybody's religion to serve a gay couple breakfast nor is a roadside greasy spoon considered a religious place.

What's next? People not getting cabs because they are gay? People not getting ambulances? Gas stations in the middle of nowhere being able to force gay couples to walk because they won't serve them gas?


+7 more 
posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Ramcheck
 


As you aren't an American, I can understand your American geography to be lacking, but just a heads up Kansas is in the middle of the country. Not so much the north or the south but the middle. Also there is no specific region that is inherently racist and intolerant. The idea of the south being "bigot-land" is an old stereotype. The fact of the matter is that bigots are loud mouths and yell very loudly, while people who aren't bigots don't have a problem and tend to stay quiet.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Ramcheck
 


It wouldn't necessarily be the South. Kansas is right smack in the middle of the country.

The country should be divided up, I agree though. The blue and red states are getting further apart on issues, to the point you practically have three or four countries makes laws in one.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Ramcheck
 


1) Kansas is not in the south. 2) racial discrimination and continued segregation is much more prevelant in the north than in the south.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:23 PM
link   
That is shameful. It's none of a such places businesses to judge on personal lifestyle. How are they going to determine a "couple" is not friends, in general? Looks like it's a gateway for even more amounting discrimination. Sad day for Kansas. I have in-laws there that would now have to deal with this. In hopes it can be overturned.



posted on Feb, 16 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Krazysh0t
 


Apologies to the 'south' in that case, I didn't realise Kansas was so central. I don't think the old stereotypes are all that much different to what I see and read on a daily basis though. There are clearly issues which need addressing. I don't understand why you don't just split the country into two or maybe three, it seems the most logical thing to do. Political opinion is sometimes wrong, and inherently it seems to be wrong most of the time in the south and mid-west regions.






top topics



 
49
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join