Kansas passes anti-gay bill promoting discrimination against same-sex couples

Religion: a license to hate, and discriminate. Republicans in the Kansas House passed an anti-gay bill Tuesday that would allow individuals and groups, including government employees, to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples on the basis of their religious beliefs.

Time reports House Bill 2453 would allow hotels, restaurants, stores and other businesses in the state to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill would also allow government clerks to refuse to sign same-sex marriage licenses without threat of a lawsuit.

The bill says governmental entities can’t require individuals, businesses or religious groups to provide services, facilities, goods or employment benefits related to any marriage or domestic partnership. It also prohibits anti-discrimination lawsuits on such grounds.

Republican supporters say the bill is designed to protect religious liberty. Yet the bill clearly promotes discrimination against gays and lesbians, and encourages government officials to ignore court rulings favoring gay marriage.

Republicans in Kansas are not trying to protect religious liberty, they are trying to punish gay and lesbian couples. In the end, the obnoxious bill represents nothing but the pathetic efforts of frightened and ugly conservative Christians desperately trying to preserve and justify their bigotry and hatred.

Kansas passes anti-gay bill
""we’ve been painted in an unfavorable and unfaithful light"The scales have been removed from your ..."

Roy Moore Refuses To Concede Because ..."
"She says "No" most of the time..."

Roy Moore Refuses To Concede Because ..."
"With any luck at all, maybe not (Roy-boy could croak tonight!)."

Roy Moore Refuses To Concede Because ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Rick T

    And if my religion or lack thereof says it’s okay for me to be gay or marry a person of the same sex? What about my religious freedom? The moment one person or even a government representative is given the religious “freedom” to suppress another person’s liberties is the moment it goes from religious freedom to religious tyranny. There can be no freedom of religion if you have to obey the rules of a religion you don’t subscribe to.

    • http://www.lyberated.com/ NineTwoSix

      Agreed.

      • ScottyB

        Oh, you mean like forcing others to go along with your religion that says it’s ok for two men to marry?

        • http://www.lyberated.com/ NineTwoSix

          I’m sure, on some level, you think what you just said makes sense, so I’ll leave you to it.

          • ScottyB

            Read the last line of dereule101’s comment, read my comment, and if you still need help let me know.

          • http://www.lyberated.com/ NineTwoSix

            I read it, You just missed the fact that it applies to you equally. There can be no freedom of religion if you are allowed to use yours to discriminate against others. As to my religion, I’m not sure being a Baptist makes me a member of the “homfascist agenda” — what it does do is make me love my fellow man, whether I agree with him or not. I’m still having a hard time finding the part of the good book that says we should discriminating against our neighbors, hurting and dehumanizing others, and ignoring reality and basic human freedoms based on just our beliefs, but it could just be me. I’ve always had the opinion that The Lord will judge us each on our own actions in our own time, and I can’t find anything in the Bible that appoints the republican party, the tea party, or people who put Leviticus over the word of Christ the morality police with permission to act unchristian toward anyone who doesn’t follow the same faith. It sort of defeats the point of The Lord’s word.

          • http://www.lyberated.com/ NineTwoSix

            It also strikes me that when Muslims try and execute law in God’s name we freak out and call them extremists, but when Kansas tries to do it it’s religious choice. How is that even logical? What makes us better or different at that point?

        • Vanadise

          If you don’t want to get gay married, don’t get gay married. If your church doesn’t want to marry gay people, they don’t have to marry gay people.

          But if you have a business that wants to discriminate against other people because they are gay, that’s where the line is crossed.

        • Rick T

          If my religion says matrimony between two men is just fine, by the right to freedom of religion you are not forced in any way to do anything. You would have freedom from the rules of my religion if you chose not to subscribe to them. You would not be forced to marry someone of the same sex or prevented from marrying someone of the opposite sex. However, if adherents of said hypothetical religion had undue influence in the secular government, and used it to impose religious laws upon everyone, you would have made a point. Specifically, you would have made my point.

          • ScottyB

            Hey now wait a minute! Isn’t the whole reason for this law the other states (Washington & Colorado come to mind) compelling florists, bakers, and others to materially participate in homosexual weddings even though those florists and others may have deeply held religious or even just deeply held philosophical beliefs against participating in homosexual weddings?

            You can’t have it both ways pal. If you want to have homosexual weddings, fine. But don’t force others under color of law to participate in violation of their deeply help principles. Fair enough?

            By the way, the law does not promote discrimination. It simply gives protection to people that do not want to participate legal protection. The headline is as dishonest as the rest of the article.

  • Axxcexx

    Good. I should have the right to decide who I want in my business.

    • Charlie Mas

      Maybe, but this law gives that authority to your employees and prohibits you from firing them for exercising it.

      • James Dixon

        That last part… Is kinda rough to deal with. I mean if you DON’T protect their job, in this case, you may be forcing them to do something that goes against their “beliefs”. I mean even in the military, you have the ability to disobey an order if you feel it is legitimately wrong. I am with you… But I can see the rocky field they are trying to traverse.

  • Sungoddess

    Religious dictatorship.

  • Random User

    That’s what they used to do to blacks in the south. It’s no different; discrimination is discrimination.

  • bw

    Ha well us gays usually have more money than the hetros so its there loss not to serve us

    • James Dixon

      Way to promote MORE division….

  • derpman Elric

    I don’t think that people should be sued because they hold onto idiotic beliefs and do not want homosexuals in their businesses (granted i wouldn’t mind very much if all of them were incinerated, or at least their beliefs were). I do not think the law should be targeted at homosexuals. in my opinion if i hated black people I shouldn’t be in trouble for not serving them (calm down im black if that makes it any better, and again i wouldn’t mind if racist’s were incinerated WE DON’T TOLERATE INTOLERANCE HERE!). Except the part where the government workers can refuse them.

  • Nathan Grant

    Who cares gays…Just bring your business somewhere else…There are plenty of facilities (the majority) that will not deny you service. I think the intention of this bill was to prevent silly lawsuits.

    • Charlie Mas

      Is that what you would tell Black people who want to sit at the lunch counter?

      • James Dixon

        Today? YES. Back in the 40’s? NO. Today, there are SOOO MANY people and businesses that do not care what your race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious background is who would HAPPILY take your business lol.