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: 11
49
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Cypress
reply to post by Another_Nut
 


Personal choice does not give you the right to discriminate freely


You discriminate every day. Like blonds over redheads? Refuse to donate to the NRA? Choose not to hang out with fundies? You make discriminatory choices every day and have (or should have) the right to free association and the state should not be in the business of telling you who you may or may not hang out with.




posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

mwood
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Gay people have their rights - business owners also have rights.

Why do people pick and choose who can have rights and the freedom to do what they want?



Why indeed. Why does a gay person's rights trump a business owners? When does one (anyone for that matter) have a right to demand goods and/or services from another? IMHO people have forgotten what rights are.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Well I'll stick with the backwards bigots on this one, not because I agree with a religious stance against homosexuality but because it's stripping away more freedom while these "progressives" sit there and clap and usher in the nanny state.

I don't care how many bills or laws you make, you're not going to change the minds of people with them. If someone refuses you service because they're bigots they lost a customer, sink or swim is the name of the game, not kumbaya...
edit on 1710America/Chicagoam28America/Chicago175 by jheated5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Grimpachi
I am trying to remember is this the same bill they are trying to make law that says doctors can withhold lifesaving medical treatment to unwed mothers on the basis of religion because they feel having children out of wedlock is sinful?



Never heard of this one. Reducto ad absurdum or another case of totally misrepresenting something?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Even though it seems like the bill was defeated in its current form it sounds like it will eventually pass in Kansas once they excise the material about denying emergency services. Then Jim Crow will return to Kansas until the fed steps in.

With Christians ignoring most of the sins and punishments of the Old Testament like execution for adultery, and lesser sins like wearing mixed fiber clothing and eating shellfish and pork, the sins they still hold near and dear to their hearts appear very outsized in importance and make me question the reasons as to why they still exist and their magnitude of importance.

Religious liberty excuses fail to convince or we should see Christians not picking and choosing what sins to deny services for.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Frith because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

jheated5
Well I'll stick with the backwards bigots on this one, not because I agree with a religious stance against homosexuality but because it's stripping away more freedom while these "progressives" sit there and clap and usher in the nanny state.

I don't care how many bills or laws you make, you're not going to change the minds of people with them. If someone refuses you service because their bigots they lost a customer, sink or swim is the name of the game, not kumbaya...


Just because one does not think the nanny state should make a law against something is not evidence of approval of something, I find refusing service for gay people abhorrent, I just don't want yet another law where the state dictates who people may or may not associate with.

I don't smoke pot nor do I approve of smoking it, but I still think it should not be illegal.

I don't agree with the misogynistic and violent message of many Rappers and I dislike the hateful bigotry of the Westboro Baptists, but neither should be muzzled by the state.


It is a particular "progressive" thing that I see where the philosophy of "If I dislike it, the government must ban it" seems the most common.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Frith
Even though it sounds like the bill was defeated in its current form it sounds like it will eventually pass in Kansas once they excise the material about denying emergency services. Then private business Jim Crow will return to Kansas until the fed steps in.



Uh, no. Jim Crow was never part of Kansas and people have evolved beyond that in the whole US. You might get a few who do this, but there will be many others who, especially in this economy, stand up and fill the demand for such goods and services. Those stores who refuse minorities will not prosper. Sorry but the average citizen is not going to be tolerant of a second "Jim Crow," and believe it or not, people can get along without federal intervention.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

NavyDoc
Uh, no. Jim Crow was never part of Kansas and people have evolved beyond that in the whole US.


You're kidding, right? Segregation was codified in Kansas state law with the segregation of schools. There's even a famous Supreme Court case about it originating from Kansas that ultimately ended the practice (Brown vs. Board of Education). If that isn't Jim Crow I don't know what is.


Those stores who refuse minorities will not prosper.


You're going to have such a small minority of openly gay people in Kansas that there would likely be no visible impact upon businesses in the area. So they would continue the practice until federal law steps in.


Sorry but the average citizen is not going to be tolerant of a second "Jim Crow," and believe it or not, people can get along without federal intervention.


I don't believe this for a minute. The Republican politicians who got this law going were voted in by the people of Kansas. They're acting out the political will of the people of Kansas. That will is to deny gay people anything publicly and privately out of religious hatred.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Frith because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
This is America. We should have the right to hate, discriminate and not involve whomever we wish. That being said we also have the chance to speak against, rise up against, ignore, and turn our backs on, people that need a law like this.
You are getting angry at the wrong fight.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Frith

NavyDoc
Uh, no. Jim Crow was never part of Kansas and people have evolved beyond that in the whole US.


You're kidding, right? Segregation was codified in Kansas state law with the segregation of schools. There's even a famous Supreme Court case about it originating from Kansas that ultimately ended the practice (Brown vs. Board of Education). If that isn't Jim Crow I don't know what is.


Those stores who refuse minorities will not prosper.


You're going to have such a small minority of openly gay people in Kansas that there would likely be no visible impact upon businesses in the area. So they would continue the practice until federal law steps in.


Sorry but the average citizen is not going to be tolerant of a second "Jim Crow," and believe it or not, people can get along without federal intervention.


I don't believe this for a minute. The Republican politicians who got this law going were voted in by the people of Kansas. They're acting out the political will of the people of Kansas. That will is to deny gay people anything publicly and privately out of religious hatred.
edit on 17-2-2014 by Frith because: (no reason given)


So you don't have any evidence of any of this, you just assume this based on your prejudice against people with whom you disagree. Isn't this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by whywhynot
 


Great find. Thanks for posting!



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Westboro and rappers aren't denying citizens their rights to live their lives as they see fit. Annoying and inconvenient yes but not limiting. This bill limits the everyday choices and options of homosexuals. It is the very essence of "back of the bus", separate but equal, etc. It won't stand.
edit on 2/17/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

kosmicjack
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Westboro and rappers aren't denying citizens their rights to live their lives as they see fit. Annoying and inconvenient yes but not limiting. This bill limits the everyday choices and options of homosexuals. It is the very essence of "back of the bus", separate but equal, etc. It won't stand.
edit on 2/17/2014 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)


The purpose of the Constitution was to set up a framework for governance. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to protect the people from the GOVERNMENT. This is why Westboro Baptist can sue if the state enacts a law limiting their free speech but don't have a case if a guy refuses to rent them loudspeakers as a free citizen should have the right to not do business with another free citizen. Would you have the state make a law to force someone to rent or sell loudspeakers to Westboro Baptist, even if he found it very offensive to help them out with their anti-gay message?

Refusing to serve someone does not "deny citizens their right to live as they see fit." Just like rappers and Westboro, it is annoying and inconvenient, but not keeping you from living as you see fit.

Besides, why does one person's right to live as they see fit trump another persons right to live as they see fit? What you are doing in this case it placing one person's right to free association over another person's right to free association.

This bill does no such thing. All it does is prevent something we have to damn much of already--lawsuits.

It has nothing to do with "separate but equal."
edit on 17-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Freedom of choice.. What about nambla? lol. I'm sure most of you would discriminate against that minority. So is that ok? Why is it ok for you to discriminate against them but when other people do the same thing to gays or whoever it is then they're bigots and holding back progress. Whats all the progress to be made with gay marriage anyways? Two gays are going to get married then discover a cure for cancer thanks to their miraculous gay marriage?? I don't get it.

Im gonna say this before I get hit with it, no im not a homophobe, I know some gay people, they're cool and I like them. Im just throwing this out there.

I truthfully think the whole gay marriage thing is pointless, let em get married who cares. I think that issue, and abortion, are two that are used to incite strong feelings and pit people against each other. Those are issues that break people up into groups that I don't like. Those tricky politicians...



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


Wrong

the bus is public

Cabs are private

Really people when you compare public services

To private ones

It is apples and oranges



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   

yamammasamonkey
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 soutt


I don't know, I was born and raised in New York state and I have lived in the south for the past twenty two years and I'd have to say that prejudice is much more prevalent here than in NY. It also seems that the anger over slavery and racial inequality in African Americans here is greater than in NY. My previous boss was always making statements that while on the outside seemed innocent enough was really a belief that he was better than the blacks who worked for him . His dad is the same and sorrowfully so is his eight year old son. The kid even whispers when he says something against a person because he's black like he knows he's in the wrong politically but still holds these beliefs that he is really better. My boss did that too. He would whisper his prejudiced ideas and say things like "you know, because he's black etc. " with his hand covering his mouth.
So they know they should be ashamed to think this but deep down in their hearts they do believe it.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 





The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.


You state that as if it was the sole purpose of the Constitution. I think the rights of minorities were on the minds of the framers of the constitution, but I'd be interested to know how you've come to the conclusion that it was "The" purpose. Nothing I've ever read indicates that.

Jefferson wrote:



“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”



And Madison wrote:




“the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.


I see a concern for preserving the rights of minorities but the backbone of their thinking is still majority rule. Notice Jefferson's "reasonable" qualifier, should that not also apply to minorities?

If I missed something that shows that the raison d'etre of the Constitution was to protect the rights of the minority I'd appreciate you pointing it out to me



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

YouSir
reply to post by Cuervo
 


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

YouSir




Did I legislate a bill to discriminate against bigots? No.

Look, this lame argument that many of you have is, well, lame. You can't actively discriminate against people in a publicly-supported medium and then cry foul when people don't like it. That doesn't work unless you are saying it to people who also share your prejudices.



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   

PaJoe52
reply to post by Cuervo
 


There's always San Francisco and Key West!


Or... anywhere else besides Kansas?



posted on Feb, 17 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I see the PC crowd got their panties in a bunch. i read most of them . this is america, BS laws are always passed. if someone doesn't like the laws, then it's off to court to get them changed. geez, i'm pretty sure that's the way its been since the country was formed? also, refusal to serve antbody has always been. i've been turned down service from places, i just take my business else where.


flame away, i don't care. PC should be struck down first.



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join