Kansas law would require churches to host gay weddings — UPDATED

Details – and a grateful H/T to Marcel at Aggie Catholics:

Religious liberty groups are blasting a proposed ordinance that would force churches in Hutchinson, Kan. to rent their facilities for gay weddings and gay parties.

The Hutchinson City Council will consider adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes in the city’s human relations code. They are expected to vote on the changes next month.

According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate “against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.”

Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed to Fox News that churches would be subjected to portions of the proposed law.

“They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

Matthew Staver, chairman of the Liberty Counsel Action, told Fox News the proposed law is “un-American.”

“It is a collision course between religious freedom and the LGBT agenda,” Staver said. “This proposed legislation will ultimately override the religious freedom that is protected under the First Amendment.”

He argued that churches cannot be forced by the government to set aside their religious convictions and their mission. And, he warned, some churches could even be forced to rent their buildings for drag parties.

“What we are ultimately going to see is churches forced to confront this law, forced to do things and allow their facilities to be used by people and for events that diametrically undercut the mission of the church,” he said.

Robert Noland, of the Kansas Family Policy Council, said the law would extend well beyond allowing access for gay weddings.

“They (churches) could not deny renting space to a gay couple if they want to have a party,” he told Fox News. “This is just another example of government creating a law imposing upon the freedom of religion and basically telling churches what they can and can’t do.”

So what could happen to churches in Hutchinson that refuse to accommodate gay parties or weddings?

“Unless the city council includes an exemption for churches, it would generate a discrimination complaint for the gay couple and it would be investigated,” Dye told Fox News. She said any churches found guilty of violating the law could be subjected to fines or other penalties.

Read more.

UPDATED: Catholic News Agency has picked up the story and added more detail:

“As far as individuals go, there doesn’t seem to be any likelihood that there will be a protection or an exemption for them,” said Kansas Catholic Conference Executive Director Michael Schuttloffel, addressing a proposal to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in the city of Hutchinson.

“As far as religious institutions, that will depend entirely on what sort of exemption – if any – is put in place (by the city council) … If there is none, then you could conceivably have a Catholic church that is forced to host a ceremony that violates Catholic beliefs.”

Schuttloffel spoke to CNA on April 24, as members of Hutchinson’s Human Relations Commission prepared for a meeting the following day to finalize their “Proposed Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Protections”…

…Schuttloffel noted that the proposal is still “early in the process” of rule-making, and its outcome is not yet clear.

But the essence of the proposal, he said, is a radical breach of religious freedom, comparable to the federal contraception mandate.


  1. watch that slope…it’s a bit slippery

  2. I can smell the lawsuit about to be filed.

  3. Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I do not think that would include churches. Public restaurants and banquet halls, perhaps so, but I think that churches would be exempt. The problem is that there are blog posts but little actual news, save that Fox radio link. Is this a problem that does not really exist?

    This is a real problem with “internet news.” It is often incorrect. How many people reported Colson dead, before he actually was? We are all tempted to post before things are fully verified. In this case, it helps fan the fires of prejudice. Which also goes against the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this matter.

    From the Cathechism: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” I am not sure that your intent is otherwise, but by posting this, the opposite rises up. All in the name of being “good Catholics,” of course.

  4. Fiergenholt says:

    It seems the way you get around this is not to rent your facility out to the general public but only to church parishioners. The other thing you do is to prohibit alcohol and tobacco products. That should pretty much control the issue. Our parish hall does follow those rules. Plenty of “church suppers” and parish-meetings but no wedding receptions at all.

  5. Fran I disagree. I have great respect, even love, for my gay friends and family members.

    Despite that, I would never, in accordance with my Catholic Faith, attend or in any way take part in any of their gay ‘marriages’, which is what the any Catholic Parish would be doing (scandal) who rented for a gay wedding.

    Would I rent the hall for a gay birthday party? Probably, although I would never bother to ask or care about anyone’s sexual prefernce outside of using it for marriage.

  6. Hieronymus says:

    I like these suggestions…

  7. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    I have been warning for a few years now that here in Ma. the First Amendment and true freedom of religion is virtually dead in many respects and that the cancer eating away at our religious liberty both as church organizations and as individual believers is growing..
    This story provides another entry in a growing list across the country.
    I think F’s stratagems might work. But they bring back memories of the stratagems the Russian Orthodox Church and people had to use in the days of the old Soviet Union to survive under the government’s jackboots.
    Control the issue and keep government enforcers off your back by becoming subservient to a liberal dictatorship????? That is not the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

  8. Deacon Greg Kandra says:

    Fran, do you have any idea how often I have printed that same section of the catechism here — and much more, to put it context — to protect and defend the homosexuals that I know and love, and to defend as well the Church (which, of course, I also love) from people who would have me believe that we “hate fags”?

    The problem is that this mandate — like another getting much attention right now — would conceivably require Catholic clergy (like, you know, me) to either conform to the law and violate the teachings of the Church, or break the law and pay a penalty.

    On another note: I was bemused to see that the law is being debated in, of all places, Kansas — which, of course, is where Dorothy Gale comes from. You and I both know a few “friends of Dorothy”… :-)

    Dcn. G.

    p.s. I should also add that, as described here, “renting a facility” could mean almost anything. We charge a standard fee for using our church for weddings and wedding Masses. (Not our hall, the church — complete with altar and tabernacle and everything else.) Is that the equivalent of “renting” it out? Lawyers could have a field day with that.

  9. That’s the way our parish handles hall rentals now, and it works well. They decided to rent only to parishioners a few years back, after some problems occurred. It had to do with a drunken brawl which errupted at a wedding reception in which the police had to be called. It also had to do with minor property damage and litter which seemed to happen when non-parishioners rented the hall. Seems like people take a little more pride and ownership when they are members (also Father knows where to find them.) Since the parish hall doubles as the school cafeteria, it was decided this was also a good time to declare the area smoke and alcohol free.

  10. We may not like what this law does, but to look at it objectively it *is* fair.

    We tell people they cannot marry in the Church for one or another reason because the Church is a community, and within that community its own rules take precedence just like a sovereign state. They may not like it but they can’t argue with the logic.

    Once parishes rent their space on the open market, the rules of the open market – geographical/political community – apply. The choices are to rent only to parishioners as has been mentioned – I don’t think an attempt to limit rentals to Catholics would withstand a legal challenge – or to do something like change the name of the facility (hall) to provide distance from it. Where the hall is internal or attached, however, this probably won’t fly.

    I don’t know whether a directive from the Diocese that Catholic churches and all properties belonging to them must not be (etc etc) would have any effect. I know that locally, Mass cannot be said in any facility other than a recognized Catholic church or chapel (i.e. Catholic schools, Seminaries, houses of religious orders etc) without the permission of the Archdiocese. Perhaps use of facilities could come under such an umbrella and require permission.

    We don’t have the same situation as you with respect to Constitution up here north of the 49th parallel, but already have had problems in this area and I anticipate more.

    God bless

  11. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    dcn don–As I Said previously–to make Christian or other religious organizations subservient to the State eviscerates the First Amendment. Our Founding Fathers would be aghast at the way the state is becoming the master pupeteer of religion under the guise of “equality” laws. And part of the reason this is succeeding is because so many Christians–instead of saying No Way! No How!– find excuses to grovel and go along to get along, ease with the breeze, ride with the tide, political loyalty before loyalty to God and Faith.
    I hope the bishops, finally showing a backbone, will find many Catholics realizing what is at stake.

  12. And let’s not kid ourselves. Most gays, especially men, have no interest in “marriage.” It was always well known that if gay “marriage” could could become legal, it would be a great vehicle to bring down the church, exactly over issues such as this that were predicted in advance.

    And yes, what IS it with Kansas, also home of HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebalius, and Tiller the Baby Killer, mecca for late term abortions before Dr. tiller was killed. It just seems odd that a midswestern state would be the newmakers on these issues.

  13. Mark Greta says:

    I suppose there are no other places in the city where this group could find to rent. How about making it be a private club available only by invitation. The Masters golf course has worked in keeping it limited only to those invited as members. Then you can limit the membership to specific groups much easier. Since religious liberty is no longer becoming possible in this country, everyone needs to begin to work to make sure those rights are not trambled by those whose life it seems is to find ways to disrupt everyone else trying to force their perversion to be accepted as normal. They are not seeking your love, but your giving up your faith teaching. I doubt the issue of being a parishoner works as the gay community would simply become parishoners to force their views on the Church.

    This of course distorts the entire meaning and intents of the Constitutution. None of this would be occuring if we had judges on the court who accepted it is not their role to legislate and to rule on the Constitution as written and with the intent of those who passed the various amendments. Our founders set up Congress to pass laws to deal with areas where legislation is needed and for there to be a way to have amendments added to the constitution. Women went the right way in gaining changes via an amendment to vote. We have amendments passed to deal with the resolution of slavery and its aftermath. Of course hundred years after they were passed, some idiotic judge took the laws passed to protect freed slaves to mean something else entirely. That had been ruled on previously when women tried to use the 14th amendment to gain the right to vote and they had been denied on the basis is was not intended to be used for other uses.

    When unelected lifetime appointed judges rule by distorting the constitution and put out central government rulings that the people have not had the opportunity directly or with their representatives to vote on and that force laws on all the states, you do nothing but bring about anger and resentment. It distorts the very meaning and fabric of the Constitution which placed strict limits on the federal government. It divides Americans who were content to have different laws in different states to allow us to have the rules in our local area we wanted and still all be Americans. If there is injustice, the religious liberty of the constitution allowed the churches to lead the way along with the freedom of press and assembly to begin to build a concensus that a national amendment should be created and passed. It takes longer and is harder, but doing what is being done now is driving us into camps of hatred and resentment. Who can deny it is much harder to respect someone who is using force to make you accept their lifestyle or point of view.

  14. IntoTheWest says:

    Two private clubs my husband and I belong to only allow members to rent their facilities for social events. The building I live in only allows HOA members to rent the common terrace for social events. This is standard practice and has been for some time as my wedding reception (close to 30 years ago) was held at a club that only allows members to use for private social functions. That’s the easiest out should things get to the point where churches aren’t exempt.

    However, for churches that are used to the income from renting their halls and gyms to the general public, that could mean a substantial drop in much-needed funds. I’m thinking of small protestant churches more than large mainstream churches in those cases.

    And, of course, the more extreme activists among the LGTB community will find a way to make a test case out of this somehow, causing some church a lot of grief and costing them a ton in legal fees defending themselves.

  15. You got me with that “FOD” – well played, dear deacon! I know that you have printed that section of course, I was stating the obvious, for what should be obvious reasons.

    Churches usually have some procedures in place that allow for them to decide who can and cannot rent their facilities… I hardly believe that this law would overturn that right. That is why I said it is very different than a business.

    If I were a concerned banquet hall or restaurant owner, well – that would be a different matter.

    Just like the priest has the right (as I would assume the deacon) to assess if a couple can marry in a church.

    And is this proposed “law” really anything at all? Or just some internet madness…. on a serious note Greg, that is what I was really questioning. I mean, if there are indeed real mandates that challenge us, doesn’t this simply muddy the waters, create fear and hysteria?

  16. When is the Catholic church going to teach that identifying oneself as a “Homosexual” is not a legitimate form of personal identity? Celibate Orthodox or Practicing Heterodox…. It makes no difference….. It is no more legitimate to identify oneself that way than it is to personally identify as “Married yet promiscuous-orientated male”. Science can prove men are hard wired to be bigamists…is the church going to mind if I organize like-minded men in the church to self identify as “Celibate but promiscuously-hard-wired bigamists”? Do I have to go to confession anymore for the obvious related sins that can be attributed to this identity?

    Please spare me the apples and oranges side bar….every red blooded male is tempted by their inherent scientifically rubber stamped non monogamous natures…the temptations and trials that afflict the common married man are no less tough than the average orthodox self identified catholic homosexual…..I would argue they are even worse trials…yet we dont demand the church or society classify us…in any special way.. Maybe we should? as it seems the church looks to be open to it……frankly this slippery slope hypocrisy angers me to no end…..there is no logical reason any group of like-minded nice congenial people and i mean that truthully, with similar sexual compulsions demand legitimacy and recognition fom the church next?

  17. Deacon Steve says:

    The problem I see with renting the Church Hall is that it would seem as if the Church is condoning something which is does not. If a same-sex couple got “married” civily and then wanted to have their reception at the Church hall there is a problem. It would seem in allowing the couple to celebrate their “marriage” at the parish that it is being condoned. Which is no doubt part of what the authors of the bill want. In charging a fee to have a marriage in the Church building that could be seen as renting to the public and a lawyer will argue that the Church should be rented to a couple for their same-sex “marriage” even if a member of the clergy doesn’t officiate at it. This is a very bad path to be going down. One solution I would like to see with marriages for the Church is that we no longer witness the marriage for the state. Have the couple get married civily and then come to the Church for a convalidation. That way we cannot be forced into the situation that Deacon Greg refered to. If we are no longer agents for the state then the state cannot tell us what to do with marriages.

  18. Dear, dear Fran: I read your comment (” but I do not think that would include churches”) and it called to mind Jeremiah 5:21, “You have eyes, but you cannot see.”

    The news report quoted not some pro-family advocate but the local human rights commission spokesperson Meryl Dye who made clear the intent and the purpose of the proposed law.

  19. Not knowing the particulars of this situation, a lot of laws are proposed. That does not mean they get passed.

  20. Um, yes… I have eyes, I can see. A local human rights spokesperson. Not a legislator. The law has not passed. I mean -that is part of what fuels the levels of ridiculous. It is a proposed law.

  21. “Churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate…” Who rents out their church to the general public? No Catholic church I know of. Now if the Parish Council is trying to make money by renting out the parish hall to anyone who needs the space, should they be allowed to keep out an Episcopalian group, or a Jewish group? How about a group of Mormons, or Buddhists? If the gents at Augusta opened up the club for public play on the third Saturday of each month, could they keep out gays?
    As usual, I’m not sure this is much of an issue!
    BTW, our parish hall is not for rent to anyone outside the parish membership!

  22. I’m not surprised. Left wing groups never stop. They are never satisfied. They will not stop until homosexuality is completely accepted as normal, including within religious beliefs. Even now many protestant denominations fully accept homosexulaity as not just not a sin, but as normal. What can I tell you.

  23. Catholic Dad says:

    Religious freedom aside, there is another fundamental problem with the proposed ordinance: The government is seeking to regulate access to private property. Create an ordinance allowing access to public property? Sure. Regulate who has access to private property? Unacceptable.

  24. Klaire, what a sweeping generalization you have offered there. Yet, ironically, plenty of folks do manage to get themselves upset about the possibility of gay couples marrying — they claim that it will lead to the break down of traditional (straight) marriage. My wife and I know at least three same-sex couples who are married, dedicated to each other, good parents to their children, and vital members of the larger communities in which they live. So while you are free to throw out generalizations about gay couples (especially men) not REALLY being interested in marriage, some of us actually know differently because we know real people. Not stereotypes. And guess what? Their existence does not threaten my marriage in the least…despite the storyline about how gay couples marrying leads to the ruin of the American family. Believe it or not, gay couples existing (and marrying) does not necessarily lead to straight people crossing over and going the other way.

    The religious liberty issue (churches’ right to deny rentals to people on religious grounds) is a different story. I think they should have that right. (For starters, I can easily imagine that an Episcopalian church might not want to rent out a large facility to Catholic bishops until the RCC begins ordaining women. The Episcopalians should have that right. And Catholic parishes, Lutheran and Baptist churches, etc., should have analogous rights under the First Amendment.)

    But the threat that gay couples (married couples in particular) pose — no threat at all. Get to know a few such couples and you might start seeing them as people, not caricatures.

  25. One thing that should be made clear — this is not a “Kansas law.” It’s not even a proposed “Kansas law.” It’s a proposed local ordinance in one town in Kansas.

  26. That was settled back in the 1960s. As the article indicates, what is being proposed is to add “sexual orientation” to the conditions that purveyors of public accommodation can’t use as the basis for denying services. Race, sex, etc., are already in the ordinance. The “public accommodation” aspect is why it makes a difference whether or not the church hall is offered for rent to members of the general public.

  27. First of all is gay marriage legal in kansas….if it is not then this bunch is in violation of the law…..

    second….regardless……if people want religion out of the state then the state should stay out of religion…..it is only fair….

  28. Might I point out that this story basically appeared only on Fox News and quotes a local ultraconservative fundamentalist group? A Google news search delivers previous few results, mostly from local Fox News affiliate sites and a couple of fundamentalist sites.

    If you go to the site of the local newspaper, you’ll find an editorial supporting the LOCAL ordinance because it prohibits discrimination in (1) employment and (2) housing. Nothing about forcing churches to rent themselves out for drunken drag parties, as Fox News claims. You can read the editorial at http://hutchnews.com/Editorialblogs/edit–Anti-discrimination-law

    Of course I know the answer some will give: there is no other news coverage because Fox News alone stands against the collapse of civilization. To that I say: Whatever.

  29. I’d be more concerned about renting out the facility to a pro-choice organization.

  30. Sorry, Deacon Stoltz, the story quoted the local human rights commission spokesperson — who is not a pro-family advocate — on the purpose and intent of the law. There is no mystery here.

    Besides, how is standing up for the right of a church not to be forced to host homosexual marriage receptions something akin, in your words, to “ultraconservative fundamentalist.” ? This is an issue of religious freedom, is it not?

  31. This part of the war on Christians by the LGBT crowd.

    First it was gay marriage.

    Next its forced gay religious marriages by clergy with the help of state laws.

    Look what happened to Catholic charities and adoption services. Many had to close their doors because the state required them to violate their religious freedoms.

    The battle is pretty much over now anyway.

  32. Right. Fox News made it up. How laughable.

  33. For those who want direct quotes and have Fox News phobia.

    1) Meryl Dye, a spokesperson for the Human Relations Commission confirmed that churches would be subject to the ordinance,

    “They would not be able to discriminate against gay and lesbian or transgender individuals,” Dye said. “That type of protection parallels to what you find in race discrimination. If a church provides lodging or rents a facility they could not discriminate based on race. It’s along that kind of thinking.”

    2) “As far as individuals go, there doesn’t seem to be any likelihood that there will be a protection or an exemption for them,” said Kansas Catholic Conference Executive Director Michael Schuttloffel, addressing a proposal to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in the city of Hutchinson.

    3) “Religious freedom is very much under attack in this country, at various levels of government,” he observed. “Obviously, there’s the contraceptive mandate at the federal level – but also there’s stuff like this at the local level, that’s popping up more and more.”

    The Kansas Catholic Conference director believes the Hutchinson ordinance is “very much part of a strategy.” Believers, he said, “are vulnerable to these things at the local level, because there aren’t the same defense systems in place that there are at the state or federal level.”

  34. There is a much more reasoned discussion of this issue in the local newspaper: http://www.hutchnews.com/Todaystop/SUN–GLBT-discrimination

    Hutchinson, Kansas has a population of 42,080. What is the largest possible number of gay and lesbian inhabitants? The highest estimates of the incidence in the general population in studies is 10 percent, but conservatives claim it’s 1 percent. So all the gay and lesbians of Hutchinson would be 420. If Hutchinson is like most small towns, most of its gays and lesbians would have been driven out over the years by the likes of the crazies quoted in the Fox News story, leaving for the cities. Let’s say that a higher-than-average percentage of them stayed; half. That would leave 210 gays and lesbians in Hutchinson.

    So we are to believe that these 210 people would terrorize the town by renting out all the area churches for drag parties as the guy in the Fox News article claims (without the claim being fact-checked by Fox)? Really? And questioning the credibility of Fox News is a phobia?

    And you wonder why gays and lesbians have to push for nondiscrimination legislation? Just look at that article and some of the comments above to see why protections are necessary.

  35. Tsk, tsk. When you suggested that this was nothing more than a kerfuffle brought on by “ultraconservative fundamentalists” (in your words), a number of us pointed out that the sources for this understanding of the proposed law were human rights advocates and the head of the state Catholic bishops’ conference. These people are hardly “crazy” (again in your words.)

    Now you use sarcastic and/or misleading language (“terrorize,” “crazies,” “driven out”) and you mix the issues of homosexual marriage and religious freedom with the justifiable need for non-discimination legislation. And, worse, you imply that some comments here are motivated by bigotry against the LGBT. Add to the mix your broad swipe against a single news network (which shows a bias and lack of prudential judgement).

    Deacon Eric, I’m afraid your responses are a classic example of someone resorting to the “ad hominen” and insults because their argument lacks logic and merit.

  36. Thank you for describing what will be the likely end result of the current “fascist” assault on religion. It will, ultimately, be the only solution, i.e., to remove the church as an official organ of the state and to limit the use of church facilities only to members of the parish “family”. Currently, my own church rents space to an amazing variety of groups outside the parish, although all have to be officially non-profit. But it does also rent space to unaffiliated individuals for just this sort of event: birthday parties, wedding receptions, cocktail parties, etc. Obviously, churches who rent for any purpose to non-parishioners would be seriously affected if they have to stop renting their facilities to these groups or people.

  37. The more subtle result of a rent-to-members-only “solution” is that it would force churches to exclude homosexuals from their congregations. And excluding homosexuals from membership is a violation of Catholic belief.

    …here’s a thought experiment… If one or both of a couple demanding homosexual “marriage” were to have been previously married (to a spouse of the opposite sex), and that marriage had never been annulled, would allowing that marriage count as discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Because a heterosexual marriage would not be allowed if one or both parties was not free to marry.

  38. Yawn.

    Another story to foment anger.

    If there was something to the suggestion that churches could be forced to marry a couple it thought unsuitable, doubtless some angry parents and/or engaged couples would have already forced someone’s hand, despite previous marriages or even existing ones.

    The real danger is that those 210 homosexuals, after taking over your town, will force all heterosexual couples to divorce and marry people of their own sex. That’s what y’all really have to worry about.

  39. I think the dividing point would be if you rented it out for a non-Catholic ceremony.

  40. Wow, with all due respect Steve. How are you a Catholic Deacon with view points like that?

    Gay rights > Catholic Beliefs in your world.

    Churches either have the right to rent to who they wish (it’s their private property) or they don’t. It’s a simple matter. A church should not be forced to violate it’s core beliefs to satisfy the government. Once that occurs, it is the end of religious liberty and their will be no further need for Deacons.

  41. midwestlady says:

    Absolutely. We need to have procedures and policies in place BEFORE the issue ever comes up so that we can point to our precedent in dealing with others. The situation has to be framed so that no one in their right mind in that kind of a situation could or would possibly want to force us to participate. Even for the payoff.

  42. midwestlady says:

    Lonnnnng marriage prep classes with signed assents to Catholic doctrine, not only for them, but for every couple. Most couples wouldn’t mind; these things could be used to embarrass certain people making trouble for the Church. etc etc.
    Way incredibly high fees for services, for which donating, registered, participating *parents* of single parishioners could get discounts for their children, etc. etc.

  43. midwestlady says:

    I hear that it’s very, very difficult & expensive to get a minister and a building for a marriage if you don’t attend church regularly, so the other denominations are doing something similar. In fact, to hire somebody is extremely expensive, so I hear. Some people have made a business out of officiating marriages out there in “unchurched world” or so I hear. They’re VERY expensive and there are long wait times. All those outside weddings you hear so much about? Unchurched people don’t want to pay the wild amounts they have to pay to have an indoor wedding in a Church.

    Catholics need to understand this so as not to be taken advantage of unfairly. We need to make it very, very, nearly impossibly difficult to get married in a beautiful Catholic church with all the trimmings, unless it’s a real Catholic wedding. We can do this.

  44. I don’t see why it is automatic that the rules of the open market apply when parishes wish to make their facilities available to others outside the Catholic community. There are plenty of facilities that others could procure. If they don’t want to be bothered with the expectations inherent in renting a Catholic facility, go elsewhere. I suspect there are Catholic parishes that rely somewhat on the revenues from renting their facilities, and laws like this might hurt their annual budgets. To me, this is a control issue, pure and simple. It’s another example of the state telling citizens, “This is how you’re supposed to live, and if you don’t, you’ll have to pay for the priviledge.”

  45. Patrick ONeill says:

    OMG how horrible – a law that says that if you sell public accommodations, you aren’t allowed to discriminate against black people. Or Jews. Or gays.

    What is the world coming to ?

  46. We are seeing new lows before our eyes, America is not the innocent nation that saved the world in WWII, we are quickly moving to the danger zone?

  47. Tom Cougar says:

    And, Facebook’s Paul Schlenker, directly from YOUR linked “article”, above (by a “deacon”, on a religious site)–which you darn well should’ve read: “According to the Hutchinson Human Relations Commission, churches that rent out their buildings to the general public would not be allowed to discriminate ‘against a gay couple who want to rent the building for a party.’” … Well, duh. Same-sex folks aren’t part of the general public?? Then don’t rent the “buildings” (probably community halls; presumably NOT churches, tho’ possibly) to the general public! How warped, to twist that into “requiring churches to host gay weddings.”

  48. What’s happened in Kansas? I don’t think Kansas is in Kansas anymore. I live just south of the border in Oklahoma. Oklahoma and Kansas seem worlds apart in politics.


  1. [...] think an experienced journalist like Greg Kandra would get punked by anti-gay rabble-rousers. But he did. I just don’t see the point in being a piece of tissue paper in the internet maelstrom. [...]

Leave a Comment