It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 10
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

muse7
It's really common sense.

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


Does that mean that we won't be required by law to go to the gym every day in ten years?




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

caterpillage
reply to post by muse7
 


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


Yep. I'm so sick of hearing that obnoxious nonsense. What's even more annoying is half the people who parrot it don't even grasp the implications of what they're saying. They just mindlessly repeat it because they hear it on TV all the time.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Ramcheck
If I were an American I would just draw a line through the middle and call the south Racistbigotland


It's sad that people make blanket statements about everyone in an area of a country. It's really great that no racism, etc, happens in the Northeast or places like Chicago.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Ummm...So your trying to challenge bigotry and intolerance.......by being bigoted, intolerant and stereotypical?
...........................Nice...

YouSir




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
A

The bill, should it become law, will easily fail because it is a clear instance of the State establishing religion.

B

Sexuality does not establish or exclude rights; humanity does. In the US, our rights are considered natural rights that are protected in our Constitution. You can classify folks as "homosexuals" or "degenerates" or "heretics" all day long, but you cannot deny equal protection of the laws by that designation.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 



I fear a beginning of an American anti-intellectualism which will lead to an American dark-age is a foot..


Beginning? It walked through the door a while back and is now redecorating the joint

I wish I was more surprised. Actually, I am surprised - and sad



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I don't understand why some people/groups just can't get over the fact that some other people/groups just aren't going to accept or like them, no matter how much its forced down their throats. It seems to me like some weird psychological deficiency to be so needy as to have to gain acceptance by someone that doesn't like you or want you around.

Personally, I have been called by racial slurs, judged by my ethnicity, and cast out of groups for the same reasons (and others). Never did it occur to me to stick around to prove to these people/groups that I needed or wanted their approval after their clear distaste. Why would I bother doing such a thing unless their was something terribly insecure about me? That type of behavior is a sickness.

What does it prove when this law gets overturned? That someone who doesn't want you around can be forced to accept you, so that you have the right to eat food they spit into, or poisoned with Visine drops, or whatever? Laws can never make hate dissipate, or enforce acceptance, or change minds; and hatred, and bigotry are human conditions that can not be cured with legislation.

And as strange as it sounds, maybe we need places where all the haters can go and eat, or live, all by themselves, without being bothered with those that they hate. Those kinds of places would be very interesting indeed, and probably very short-lived.

Hate has to burn itself out; protest only fuels the flames further and engulfs whatever is around the fringes as well...



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

odd1out

Personally, I have been called by racial slurs, judged by my ethnicity, and cast out of groups for the same reasons (and others). Never did it occur to me to stick around to prove to these people/groups that I needed or wanted their approval after their clear distaste. Why would I bother doing such a thing unless their was something terribly insecure about me? That type of behavior is a sickness.



Were you ever denied services or goods based on the colour of your skin?

That's the difference.
Anyone can hold or voice an opinion about anyone or anything, what they cannot do is make that opinion affect someone else in practical terms.
Everyone is equal under the law and so it should remain.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Cypress
reply to post by Cuervo
 


This is a clear violation of the civil rights act of 1964 and should be struck down by the supreme court. Also, against the counter argument, this is not a first amendment rights issue. A person choosing to be gay does not infringe on your religion. You are not being forced to be gay.


You are wrong about it being a clear violation of the civil rights act because it is not a law but simply a bill passed by the Kansas house.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


There's always San Francisco and Key West!



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Gryphon66
A

The bill, should it become law, will easily fail because it is a clear instance of the State establishing religion.

B

Sexuality does not establish or exclude rights; humanity does. In the US, our rights are considered natural rights that are protected in our Constitution. You can classify folks as "homosexuals" or "degenerates" or "heretics" all day long, but you cannot deny equal protection of the laws by that designation.


There is no natural rights thats common law not in the constitution. The constitution uses something called inalienable rights which is bestowed on us by the creator.So saying something will be overturned because of religion is kind of silly actually since the constitution itself is based on what is known as gods laws. It was Started by Martin Luther during the reformations which would eventually lead to the downfall of kings.No where in the constitution does it give you the right to be married and denial of said right in no way violates the constitution. You have to realize to the constitution marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony where me personally i think it should remain.Ive never agreed with the state getting involved in marriage for example making people get a license to be married. Should have been between two people and a priest the state should never have gotten involved.

edit on 2/17/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   

blupblup

odd1out

Personally, I have been called by racial slurs, judged by my ethnicity, and cast out of groups for the same reasons (and others). Never did it occur to me to stick around to prove to these people/groups that I needed or wanted their approval after their clear distaste. Why would I bother doing such a thing unless their was something terribly insecure about me? That type of behavior is a sickness.



Were you ever denied services or goods based on the colour of your skin?

That's the difference.
Anyone can hold or voice an opinion about anyone or anything, what they cannot do is make that opinion affect someone else in practical terms.
Everyone is equal under the law and so it should remain.


I agree 100 percent but i have a bad feeling its not going to remain that way for long we keep giving more and more power to the federal government and with that kind of power abuse will occur.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
For the humpteen-hundreth time:

It's not about the fact that LGBT folks are "not liked" ... and I am never ceased to be amazed at the Freudian implications that a greater awareness of the existence of LGBT folks in movies, tv, and media is somehow "shoving it down throats."

You don't have a right to relegate American citizens to second-class or "hidden" status because for some reason their very existence makes you squeamish.

American citizens have rights under the Constitution, legal precedent, Federal, State and local law.

All American citizens have those rights, not just those the majority (or minority) favors.
edit on 9Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:46:19 -060014p092014266 by Gryphon66 because: Line space



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

dragonridr

There is no natural rights thats common law not in the constitution. The constitution uses something called inalienable rights which is bestowed on us by the creator.So saying something will be overturned because of religion is kind of silly actually since the constitution itself is based on what is known as gods laws. It was Started by Martin Luther during the reformations which would eventually lead to the downfall of kings.No where in the constitution does it give you the right to be married and denial of said right in no way violates the constitution. You have to realize to the constitution marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony where me personally i think it should remain.Ive never agreed with the state getting involved in marriage for example making people get a license to be married. Should have been between two people and a priest the state should never have gotten involved.

edit on 2/17/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


~~~~~

The assertion that the Constitution doesn't address the concepts of "rights" is not only incorrect but asinine. Through long tradition and practice the first Ten Amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights which was passed at the same time as the Constitution itself.

"Inalienable rights" is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence for goodness sake, not the Constitution.

The right in question is "equal protection under the law" which is addressed at Amendments 5 and 14.

The perception that Martin Luther somehow directly effects either the US Constitution or the "downfall of kings" would be an interesting argument ... I'd love to see some evidence and proof along those lines since none is offered here.

I don't disagree that State and Local governments should not be involved in marriage (or a lot of other things) but they are and WHILE THEY ARE the Constitution applies to them.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


A PRIVATELY owned business has the right to refuse service to ANYONE. This isn't about gay rights, this is about property rights and individual sovereignty.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

WP4YT

buster2010

WP4YT

amazing
Those supporting this law...why is it okay to be a bigot? Why is it okay to refuse service for someone because of sexual preference? Why is sexual preference wrong to you? Is this based on the bible?


Not a bigot at all. For me it's about freedom. The restaurant is privately owned on private property. The owners should be able to choose who enters and stays in their establishment. Would you also like strangers coming into YOUR HOME and the government telling you that you had to let them stay so long as they are paying you?

First it starts with things like this, next thing you know the government is telling you what you can watch on tv and books to read.

Just look at Hitler in Germany. Sorry to invoke godwins law, but that's how Hitler started. He actually passed many laws against discrimination and other things that seem like "good" things to protect people. He was even a leader in women's rights and animal rights. He had women free and voting while America was still making sure they were barefoot and pregnant. Next thing you know he was banning cigarettes and alcohol in the name of the public good. (NY is already following him there.) And we all know the things he did next...


So you are saying that discrimination is freedom?


Most certainly -

As long as those being discriminated against also have the freedom to shop elsewhere. Then, everyone has freedom. The bigots can be bigots, And the "victims" can shop elsewhere and give their money to someone who's not a bigot. The only thing that is hurt, is their feelings. They are still free.

The jim crow laws were at the other end of the spectrum. That was state sponsored discrimination. Those being discriminated against didn't have the opportunity to shop elsewhere. That's the complete opposite of anti discrimination laws. I think the middle ground is best - no stupid laws. Laws are just a way for the government to rob our pockets.




What gives a business the right to even ask a person their sexuality? Are they going to question every couple that comes in the door? Two guys walk in they are gay two women walk in they are gay. Is that how they are going to do it. The best way to get rid of this ignorance is to get rid of religion. If you don't want a certain set of people to shop at your establishment then don't sell what they might want.

If you think that a person that is being discriminated against is still free just because they can shop somewhere else then you have no idea what freedom is. Freedom is being able shop at whatever business you want not all business except the ones that are run by bible thumping primitives.
edit on 17-2-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

xDeadcowx
This is where the lines of liberty can appear to get a bit blurry, but really its pretty simple to distinguish where the line is. I am not sure about every state in the country, but in the ones i am familiar with there are laws that protect people from discrimination in the work place.

For example, in my home state of Washington, a business owner can fire their employees at anytime, without stating a reason or using a legitimate reason. There isnt a lot that the employee can do in that situation. If that person is fired and the reason is because of their race, sexual preference, or any thing else that is protected by discrimination laws, then the employee has ever right to sue and will likely win the case.

I don't see how this is any different. Yes a business has the right to refuse service to anyone, but they should not be able to discriminate based on protected classes. Refuse service to someone because they smell, or are drunk, or would likely cause a ruckus all day long and you are well within your rights as a business owner. When you start discriminating against people based off or race, creed, for sexual orientation then you are crossing the line and violating the rights of your fellow Americans.

I do not see this bill being enforced or upheld for long.



You think there should be "protected classes?"



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Gryphon66

dragonridr

There is no natural rights thats common law not in the constitution. The constitution uses something called inalienable rights which is bestowed on us by the creator.So saying something will be overturned because of religion is kind of silly actually since the constitution itself is based on what is known as gods laws. It was Started by Martin Luther during the reformations which would eventually lead to the downfall of kings.No where in the constitution does it give you the right to be married and denial of said right in no way violates the constitution. You have to realize to the constitution marriage is nothing more than a religious ceremony where me personally i think it should remain.Ive never agreed with the state getting involved in marriage for example making people get a license to be married. Should have been between two people and a priest the state should never have gotten involved.

edit on 2/17/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)


~~~~~

The assertion that the Constitution doesn't address the concepts of "rights" is not only incorrect but asinine. Through long tradition and practice the first Ten Amendments are referred to as the Bill of Rights which was passed at the same time as the Constitution itself.

"Inalienable rights" is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence for goodness sake, not the Constitution.

The right in question is "equal protection under the law" which is addressed at Amendments 5 and 14.

The perception that Martin Luther somehow directly effects either the US Constitution or the "downfall of kings" would be an interesting argument ... I'd love to see some evidence and proof along those lines since none is offered here.

I don't disagree that State and Local governments should not be involved in marriage (or a lot of other things) but they are and WHILE THEY ARE the Constitution applies to them.


Never said it doesnt you are misinterpreting what i said it does address rights just not the ones everyone thinks. If you want to learn how long the fights for freedoms have been going on you need to learn about history. Just the fact that you dont understand tells me you have no idea where your rights and freedoms came from which is sad really everyone should know.

Heres a good place to start take the time to learn what liberty is and by the way freedom doesnt give you the right to tell people they must accept you or your beliefs. All it says is they cant deny you the right to have those beliefs your freedoms are directly related to the right to worship and believe what you will. This is the reason the government shouldnt be banning marriage nor should they be condoning it either. This was established as nothing more than a method of control.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 2/17/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

blupblup

odd1out

Personally, I have been called by racial slurs, judged by my ethnicity, and cast out of groups for the same reasons (and others). Never did it occur to me to stick around to prove to these people/groups that I needed or wanted their approval after their clear distaste. Why would I bother doing such a thing unless their was something terribly insecure about me? That type of behavior is a sickness.



Were you ever denied services or goods based on the colour of your skin?

That's the difference.
Anyone can hold or voice an opinion about anyone or anything, what they cannot do is make that opinion affect someone else in practical terms.
Everyone is equal under the law and so it should remain.


Would not a law permitting a business to refuse service to anyone for any reason still be equal protection under the law if that law applied to all businesses equally?

I like less government. I do understand that many people want a nanny-state to make everything "fair" for them, but less governmental interference in people's day to day lives means more freedom, not less.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   

idmonster
reply to post by windword
 


Am I reading a different Bill?

"a)" states that a business can refuse to supply the services listed "if related to, or relate to the celebration of".

As I read it, all that means is that I cant refuse to serve you because you're gay, but you cant accuse me of discrimination if I refuse to let you use my venue for your gay wedding, or provide services for said celebration in the grounds that I disagree with homosexuality. (I use "I" for illustrative purposes, I an neither anti or pro gay, just not really bothered either way)

"b)" seems fairly self explanatory, but fail to see hoe "c)" can be enforced. If you are legally "Mr and Mr Smith" how can anyone say you are not?



Now, now, let's not let facts get in the way of hysteria.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join