Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples

  • 13-02-2014 9:47pm
    #1
    Lou.m
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭


    http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/

    :mad::mad::mad:
    Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.

    House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
    Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.

    They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

    This includes employees of the state.


Comments

  • #2
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,147 ✭✭✭Daith


    Iona wanted something similar when civil partnership was being introduced.


  • #3
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    This is another example of reversals, where the dominant group who have control of education, the law, most of the media etc want to continue discriminating against individuals from a non-dominant group.
    This happens in any backlash against freedoms won by any non dominant group as soon as the group begin to act on those freedoms.

    People say things like, "I have nothing against _______ but they are going too far and I am suffering because I can no longer tell them what they can and cant do".
    Words like discrimination, homophobia, sexism, racism, etc will not be used in arguments put forward by the dominant group.
    Any actions taken will not be taken as an expression of being against anyone they will be taken to protect the greater good, to protect freedom in general and free speech in particular. This is a way to hide prejudice and discrimination under a reversal and under the guise of positivity. Anyone speaking out against such thinking will be labelled negative and will have to spend a long time explaining how, when and why they are discriminated against because the positive dominant group which is considered normal dont see how anyone could have any problems if they simply kept positive and private and quiet about things.


  • #4
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    The old "we don't mind you being different... just as long as we don't have to see or hear you being different" chestnut.

    I'm really starting to get irked by the whole "you're oppressing me for telling me I can't be a bigot" mentality.


  • #5
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,926 ✭✭✭Grab All Association






  • #6
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    The premise of this bill appears to preempt legal SSM where religious institutes and private business can refuse services to Gay couples without the fear of getting sued. Personally as a libertarian i don't have much wrong with this premise. If one refuse to serve you then you can always go somewhere else. It may be un-PC to say that but the alternative is using the state to 'make' people do as they deem fit, there is no liberty in that. And before people jump down my throat my own personal belief on SSM is that the state should have no business in telling people who they can and cannot marry. The irony here of course is that people is asking the state for this permission yet will have no qualms then using the state to further their own morals or values, by forcing people into situations that would compromise their own free conscious.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,147 ✭✭✭Daith


    jank wrote: »
    The premise of this bill appears to preempt legal SSM where religious institutes and private business can refuse services to Gay couples without the fear of getting sued. Personally as a libertarian i don't have much wrong with this premise. If one refuse to serve you then you can always go somewhere else. It may be un-PC to say that but the alternative is using the state to 'make' people do as they deem fit, there is no liberty in that.

    It's discrimination based on sexuality. If a shop refused to serve a black person because of their race would that be fine?

    Fortunately Ireland is not Kanas and backwards thinking like this was dismissed with civil partnership. Having to listen to people compare civil partnership to abortion was bad enough. We don't live in a free world where people can do what they want and the state does decide what is legal and what isn't.


  • #8
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,156 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    jank wrote: »
    The premise of this bill appears to preempt legal SSM where religious institutes and private business can refuse services to Gay couples without the fear of getting sued. Personally as a libertarian i don't have much wrong with this premise. If one refuse to serve you then you can always go somewhere else. It may be un-PC to say that but the alternative is using the state to 'make' people do as they deem fit, there is no liberty in that. And before people jump down my throat my own personal belief on SSM is that the state should have no business in telling people who they can and cannot marry. The irony here of course is that people is asking the state for this permission yet will have no qualms then using the state to further their own morals or values, by forcing people into situations that would compromise their own free conscious.
    Are you arguing that freedom to discriminate is liberty?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #9
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    jank wrote: »
    Personally as a libertarian i don't have much wrong with this premise .

    Please don't pretend you are fine with it because you're a 'libertarian' because we both know from your post history that's not the case. No, I'm not going to engage into another roundabout argument over this one.


  • #10
    Clandestine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    Daith wrote: »
    It's discrimination based on sexuality. If a shop refused to serve a black person because of their race would that be fine?
    If its a private shop, I don't see why not. If people don't like it, they can vote with their wallets.


  • #11
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    Please don't pretend you are fine with it because you're a 'libertarian' because we both know from your post history that's not the case. No, I'm not going to engage into another roundabout argument over this one.

    I don't identify myself as a libertarian now because you say so? So, what I am lying? I am 'secretly' against SSM but saying otherwise. Please find in ANY post of mine that I said I was explicitly against SSM. You can of course disagree with my point of view, but to make things up about another poster just to discredit that point of view is well below the belt.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Friend Computer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Friend Computer


    Jank, anyone who's been on the site long enough will know your opinions on these issues. Please, please stop the BS about being innocent, it's just pathetic.


  • #13
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    So what are my opinions?


  • #14
    Friend Computer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Friend Computer


    No matter what I say you'll deny it anyway, just as you did above.


  • #15
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,147 ✭✭✭Daith


    Clandestine wrote: »
    If its a private shop, I don't see why not. If people don't like it, they can vote with their wallets.

    Ireland has laws. If the shop owner doesnt like it he can close down and move to a different country free from persecution from the gays.


  • #16
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Friend Computer wrote: »
    No matter what I say you'll deny it anyway, just as you did above.

    Well if its not true of course I will deny it. I take you take your rules of debate from the LBJ school of politics and character assassinations?
    the race was close and Johnson was getting worried. Finally he told his campaign manager to start a massive rumor campaign about his opponent’s life-long habit of enjoying carnal knowledge of his own barnyard sows.

    “Christ, we can’t get a way calling him a pig-****er,” the campaign manager protested. “Nobody’s going to believe a thing like that.”

    “I know,” Johnson replied. “But let’s make the sonofabitch deny it.”

    http://masscommons.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/fear-loathing-on-the-campaign-trail-make-them-deny-it/


  • #17
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,156 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    jank wrote: »
    I don't identify myself as a libertarian now because you say so? So, what I am lying? I am 'secretly' against SSM but saying otherwise. Please find in ANY post of mine that I said I was explicitly against SSM. You can of course disagree with my point of view, but to make things up about another poster just to discredit that point of view is well below the belt.

    As always if you have issues with a a post report it.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #18
    Friend Computer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Friend Computer


    jank wrote: »
    Well if its not true of course I will deny it. I take you take your rules of debate from the LBJ school of politics and character assassinations?

    No it's from the "liberal fascism" school of not believing everything people say, especially when they're lying to cover themselves.


  • #19
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Friend Computer wrote: »
    No it's from the "liberal fascism" school of not believing everything people say, especially when they're lying to cover themselves.

    Oh dear, foot in mouth moment. And why should people then believe you, someone who is more interested in smearing a poster rather then debate the actual points of the OP. You are the person who made the initial accusations towards me, so the burden on proof is on you I am afraid. This is how it generally works…..


  • #20
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    mango salsa wrote: »
    As always if you have issues with a a post report it.

    Is it against the charter of this forum to 'make stuff up' about other posters? I am actually curious as other forums seem to have different outlooks on this.


  • #21
    Friend Computer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Friend Computer


    jank wrote: »
    Oh dear, foot in mouth moment. And why should people then believe you, someone who is more interested in smearing a poster

    Ah! But I never explicitly mentioned you in that post, now did I? I'd appreciate it if you didn't make things up about me. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,156 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Folks - debate this issue rather than accusations and counter accusations. The discussion is specifically about Kansas. Stick to it.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #23
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,156 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Interesting read


    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #24
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    Thanks Mango lovely article shows us just how bad those reversals can get in the protection of the freedom to discriminate.
    Now I think Im hearing accusations of fascism towards those who want equality and who would "force" people to do the jobs they are paid to do, treating all citizens equally.
    Remember religious people of any faith can choose who they will and will not marry in their own religious ceremonies, its only state marriage that's in question here and Registrars have a job to do that they are paid by the state to do and they have a duty to carry out the requests of the state not privately decide what laws they like and which they dont.
    It is premised on the notion that the most pressing injustice in Kansas right now is the persecution some religious people are allegedly experiencing at the hands of homosexuals.

    As Rush Limbaugh recently noted,
    “They’re under assault. You say, ‘Heterosexuality may be 95, 98 percent of the population.’ They’re under assault by the 2 to 5 percent that are homosexual.” .

    The remedy for such a terrible threat is, however, state support for more discrimination.

    The law empowers any individual or business to refuse to interact with, do business with, or in any way come into contact with anyone who may have some connection to a gay civil union, or civil marriage or … well any “similar arrangement” (room-mates?).
    It gives the full backing of the law to any restaurant or bar-owner who puts up a sign that says
    “No Gays Served”.
    It empowers employees of the state government to refuse to interact with gay citizens as a group.
    Its scope is vast: it allows anyone to refuse to provide “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits” to anyone suspected of being complicit in celebrating or enabling the commitment of any kind of a gay couple.
    http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/14/what-the-hell-just-happened-in-kansas/


Advertisement