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: 16
49
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

intelligenthoodlum33
If you want the freedom to deny service to a group of people, then either move to a place where that is acceptable or buy an island and have at it.


I am almost certain no one would miss you.


However in most 1st world countries, that crap doesn't fly....nor should it.


P.S. - Calling a duck a duck doesn't make the accuser a duck also. Quit with the twisted logic.



Enjoy your slavery - you earned it!!

The government and its filthy laws should not intrude into matters of personal choice on private property - there should be no laws regarding any race, religion or sexual orientation - to make such laws is in violation of the US constitution.

I might not agree with what people say, or what they do on their private property - but I will defend their right to do it to the death.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Spider879
I am not a gay male so why should I care about a movement/mission to oppress gays??..simple... injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and that include a threat to me and mine for obvious historical reasons if I don't speak out and try to nip this in the bud, who will be there for me when the mission to oppress gays becomes mission creep to oppress me, for although many here are confident this will not stand, and maybe they are right, it sure can linger for a very long time,again see what they tried to push (mission creep),not just private business concerns but government institutions.


This is not a 'mission' to oppress gays - it is some homophobic people who just want their right to be the way they are on their own property.

The 'mission' as you put it seems to be the oppression of people who want to express their own preferences on their own private property. You are handing over to government the power to make personal decisions - you want the state to be in charge of what you do in your own house. Once you give them this power, then be sure that they will abuse it - and the minorities you want to protect will end up being those who become the victims of it.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Here's the latest article on this in the Guardian - www.theguardian.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Please.

There is usually no response necessary to this neo-Randian clap-trap, but let's "call a spade a spade" this morning, shall we?

All the real property in this country was granted via sovereign act, either by a monarch or the Federal, State or local governments. Land, real property, does not just pop into existence when someone is issued a deed, title, etc. The Deed recognizes that initial "grant" of land.

Where are deeds recorded again? (i.e. made legal) That's right, at the County courthouses.

How are they made legal? By the "notary" of a County or State official.

An individual has exactly the amount of "rights" on property that the various levels of governments allow. If you don't believe that, just stop paying your mortgage and see what happens.

Why is that? Because in the United States, the governments represent the People. The ultimate "sovereign" power of the People is administered through our Constitutions and laws.

This pseudo-ideological rubbish that any individual anywhere suddenly arises above the will of the People is just an example of modern ignorance that passes unchallenged. The PEOPLE are the sovereigns in this country, and their will is expressed through the laws.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Amagnon

Spider879
I am not a gay male so why should I care about a movement/mission to oppress gays??..simple... injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere and that include a threat to me and mine for obvious historical reasons if I don't speak out and try to nip this in the bud, who will be there for me when the mission to oppress gays becomes mission creep to oppress me, for although many here are confident this will not stand, and maybe they are right, it sure can linger for a very long time,again see what they tried to push (mission creep),not just private business concerns but government institutions.


This is not a 'mission' to oppress gays - it is some homophobic people who just want their right to be the way they are on their own property.


The 'mission' as you put it seems to be the oppression of people who want to express their own preferences on their own private property. You are handing over to government the power to make personal decisions - you want the state to be in charge of what you do in your own house. Once you give them this power, then be sure that they will abuse it - and the minorities you want to protect will end up being those who become the victims of it.

I get it quite a few folks here are concerned with the private property issue but this goes beyond priviate porperity and small mom and pop operations. you apparently missed the part where they include government institutions I'll re-post it again.


Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

www.slate.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
As usual, I seem to get to a post at its tail end. I don't see this law holding up. Its in direct violation of the basic tenets of the constitution and bill of rights in so many different ways. It will be challenged and struck down. There should no room for any kind of discrimination. This is Christianity run amok, which is also against the basic tenets of the bible. This would not be Jesus approved. Talk about taking two steps back. This is unusual and excessive punishment for the crime of being human in one of its multifaceted ways. It is bigot approved.
edit on 18-2-2014 by BlueSun because: Left out a statement

edit on 18-2-2014 by BlueSun because: left out a word.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
The issue can be seen in many ways, depending on how you phrase it:

"Should Businesses be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals?"

"Should Businesses be able to choose who they do Business with?"

If you do a survey the majority would probably respond to the first question with "No" and to the second with "Yes" even though in this case they are referring to the same thing.

I for one fail to see how Businesses are supposed to tell who is gay and who isn't, unless they are found penetrating each others orfices in public...which is unlikely.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
So some guy out there has a dream that he'll one day own his own business. Let's say a bakery. He works hard, saves up his money and eventually opens that bakery. He doesn't question his customers sexual orientation when they come into buy a donut or to hang out and sip a cup of coffee. Maybe he can guess that certain customers are gay, but it doesn't matter to him.

He doesn't "feel" there is anything wrong with homosexuality, there certainly isn't any sort of "yuck" factor in it for him. However, he is a Christian and believes that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. He accepts that. It's not the only issue like this. There are more than a few things that he believes the Bible teaches are sinful, but that he doesn't have a gut level "it's evil" reaction to. There are a few things that he wishes the Bible didn't judge as sinful because if it didn't he would engage in them himself. He can understand why people that don't share his beliefs about God and the Bible don't share the idea that homosexuality is sinful.

So people come into his bakery, some of them are gay, they order their donuts, they hang out and drink coffee, without regard to their sexual orientation they're welcome there, genuinely welcome there, he doesn't secretly wish that "these gays would find some place else to hang out" or anything of the kind.

But when one of his customers comes and ask him to bake a cake for their gay wedding, he balks. He see's his baking of a cake for a gay wedding to be an endorsement of gay marriage and a homosexual lifestyle. It's awkward, it would be so much easier to just bake the cake, the truth be known, he likes this customer. He doesn't want to offend him, he really doesn't want to hurt his feelings.

But he believes that he can't bake that cake and be true to his faith, even though it might mean that he's going to lose his bakery.

Are you really saying that this man must either compromise his sincerely held beliefs about God, about right & wrong, or lose his business?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Agreed but is it right to specify one group your allowed to refuse? The law doesn't say you can refuse anyone, just gays. If the law said that ( it would be a crazy Pandora's box) but still it wouldn't be discrimination.

There is no way those who claim it's a freedom issue can agree with the fact they singled out one group!



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Spider879

I get it quite a few folks here are concerned with the private property issue but this goes beyond priviate porperity and small mom and pop operations. you apparently missed the part where they include government institutions I'll re-post it again.


Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

www.slate.com...


The govt should never be allowed to discriminate on race, sex, religion - this is infringing peoples personal liberties, not the first such case - but definitely unconstitutional.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


No one is making him compromise... Those he offends go online and it tends to go viral. The state hasn't made anyone bake anything! The buisness owner catches flack and gets bad press, that's called the FREE MARKET!! Some one show me where the gov. Is making Christians bake cakes for gay weddings and you have a case. Or do you just think Christians shouldn't be criticized for what are clearly discriminatory practices because they hide behind an anchient text authored by goat herders. Not the smartest people on the planet at the time...but goat herders.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


But there not allowed to choose who they do buisness with... They can only refuse gays! That's what makes it jacked up. That's what makes it bigotry. They can't refuse blacks, Indians, women or red heads. Only gays.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Gryphon66
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Please.

There is usually no response necessary to this neo-Randian clap-trap, but let's "call a spade a spade" this morning, shall we?

All the real property in this country was granted via sovereign act, either by a monarch or the Federal, State or local governments. Land, real property, does not just pop into existence when someone is issued a deed, title, etc. The Deed recognizes that initial "grant" of land.

Where are deeds recorded again? (i.e. made legal) That's right, at the County courthouses.

How are they made legal? By the "notary" of a County or State official.

An individual has exactly the amount of "rights" on property that the various levels of governments allow. If you don't believe that, just stop paying your mortgage and see what happens.

Why is that? Because in the United States, the governments represent the People. The ultimate "sovereign" power of the People is administered through our Constitutions and laws.

This pseudo-ideological rubbish that any individual anywhere suddenly arises above the will of the People is just an example of modern ignorance that passes unchallenged. The PEOPLE are the sovereigns in this country, and their will is expressed through the laws.



Private property rights are the basic principle of both freedom and capitalism - you are asserting that the government can make any law it wants, it cannot - it is constrained by the constitution which protects private property rights.

You are also incorrect if you think mob rule is ok in the US - the US is a Republic, that is it is founded on LAW. Law is not whatever you want it to be - law is there to protect the property and liberty of the individual - not as a tool of the state to infringe liberties. That it is used as such is not an indication that such actions are legitimate - they are not.

There are limitations on use of property, if that use may cause loss or damage to others or is involved in a criminal process - but the right to deny entry to your private property is a foundational legal concept.

Despite my contempt for all states - especially those who have fallen to fascism (of which the US is one of the most obvious) - there is at least a constitution which declares protections for private property. It is a right to deny entry onto your property to anyone you like, even state officials and police - they can only enter if they have a warrant, or they have evidence to show a crime is in progress.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

whywhynot
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Ok guys deny ignorance, this is a bill not a LAW. It is NOT LAW!

Check it out



They don't want to hear that. What would they have to complain about.

www.msnbc.com...



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I'm usually the first to step forward and shout about LGBT rights but I personally think you should be able to refuse service to ANYBODY for whatever reason, race, don't like the persons face, sexuality, religion, can't be bothered to serve them...... then it's your choice and in my honest opinion the more people that ban people for their sexuality the more it plays into the hand of those that wish to see the back of sexual intolerance and inequality.


Just like the case of the B&B in the UK that were force to allow Gay and Bi guests, the more you force people to be tolerant the less the general public will want to be tolerant themselves.


The only problem I have with this bill is that it would only be for sexual bigots, there should be a law that protects idiots and bigots of all types.
edit on 18-2-2014 by b14warrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Skyfloating
The issue can be seen in many ways, depending on how you phrase it:

"Should Businesses be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals?"

"Should Businesses be able to choose who they do Business with?"

If you do a survey the majority would probably respond to the first question with "No" and to the second with "Yes" even though in this case they are referring to the same thing.

I for one fail to see how Businesses are supposed to tell who is gay and who isn't, unless they are found penetrating each others orfices in public...which is unlikely.


You have summarized the issue perfectly - and it is the individuals right to decide who they do business with, and they should not have to disclose any reasons.

You cannot force people to do business with people they dont want to without infringing personal liberty.

As for figuring if people are gay or not, this is the reason why modesty is a virtue, and why it is reasonable to have laws to prevent public acts which can be construed to have a sexual nature to them. If you dont show, then nobody knows - but public acts of a private nature can evoke emotional responses from people involuntarily - so it is better to be reserved and modest in public so as to not stir up peoples emotions.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Ramcheck
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.


New Orleans > New York

Charleston > Los Angeles

Myrtle Beach > Atlantic City

Dallas > Detroit

Raleigh > Rhode Island (yes the whole state)

Charlotte > Chicago

Savannah > Sarajevo

New York is a cess pool of filth, greed, violence, and trampled rights for the sake of 'security'. Los Angeles is so disconnected from real life that it isnt even funny, but they do make all the movies so it stands to reason that they cant differentiate between reality and fiction. Detroit is in the dumps, literally - bankruptcy is bad. Chicago is the harbinger of crooked politicians and it also gave us Barack Obama and Rod Blagoyevich - gross. Yet the South has somehow been run into the ground. Ha

I made that little list above, but heres an article with some supporting evidence.

www.thedailybeast.com...

So it would seem the South is still the best, and that we have a very different definition of 'run into the ground'.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
As I posted previously this Bill won't be heard by the Kansas Senate. However I wanted to say that people seem confused on a particular issue. Once you offer a good or service to the public it must include the entire public, if you want to pick and choose who you sell to or provide a service for you must operate as an independent contractor and hope that word of mouth among your chosen group is good enough for you to make a living on.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Well, FWIW, I`ll do Business with homo$exuals. No problem. I won't do Business with murderers though. I discriminate against murderers. Its against my values. I hope that doesn't make me a bigot.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


The southern states are ranked last in healthcare, average hose hold income, education, and a load of other things I'm forgetting. Oh but we do win in being over weight and most people who live below the poverty line. I'm from Mississippi and were like literally the worst ay everything



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join