Kansas House passes bill allowing religious people to discriminate against homosexuals

I used to think tornadoes were the most destructive things in Kansas, then I got a good view of their state legislature.

The Kansas House on Wednesday advanced legislation that would allow a religious defense to discriminate against gays.

Yes, you read that properly.  The Kansas House, charged with maintaining equality for its citizenry, just passed legislation enabling, not prohibiting, discrimination.

State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, defended his bill, saying it was meant to make sure government could not infringe on an individual’s religious beliefs.

“Free exercise of religion is at the core of who we are as a people,” Kinzer said.

Davis asked Kinzer if under Kinzer’s bill an apartment owner could cite his religious beliefs to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple.

“That is generally correct,” Kinzer said.

Listen here: when religious liberty to you means arguing for carte blanche to mistreat others, you are not a religion of love or compassion.  These people have just canonized hatred as a protected virtue and attempted to hand a certain sect of the population the power to bully others as a right – and you bet your ass a lot of them will use it.  Kinzer thinks this privilege of faith should supersede justice.  This is apparently a privilege earned by being gullible enough to think someone rose from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Fucking Christ, this is why we atheists loath power in the hands religion, particularly a religion with a history saturated with divinely ordained prejudice.

State Rep. Charlie Roth, R-Salina, said that Kinzer’s legislation was “homophobic” and that it will hurt Kansas’ image. “It sends the message that Kansas is not welcoming. Kansas will become known as the land of the pure as defined by the few,” Roth said.

But Kinzer said local units of government should not be allowed to engage in religious discrimination against its citizens.

In arguing for the right to discriminate against gays, Kinzer has the gall to whine about how horrible it is to be discriminated against.  That’s fucking rich.  He also somehow imagines that if such license isn’t granted that the Christians are somehow being victimized by the government.

And it’s not just him.  The bill passed the Kansas House, and not by a small margin.

The bill was approved 89-27. Ballard, Davis and state Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, voted against it. State Reps. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, and TerriLois Gregory, R-Baldwin City, voted for it.

Sadly, you don’t get that many morally demented people in government without a largely morally demented population to vote them in.  89-27?  89 to fucking 27!?  Seriously?  To all you believers, remember this the next time you want to tell atheist activists that we’re taking extremists as representative of the whole.

NO!  It doesn’t matter what you believe. You do not get to discriminate against blacks because of your religion.  You do not get to discriminate against women because of your religion.  You do not get to discriminate in deed against people with earrings, Hispanics, people with brown eyes, or any other American because of your fucking religion.  In America, the leeway to discriminate by action is not a right you get.  It is not a right any American gets!  It’s not a right any good person should even want.  But here we have a sterling example of how religion positively sucks at making good people.  Indeed, if anything, it empowers the evil.

It doesn’t matter how fervently you believe, it doesn’t matter how sure you are that god hates all the same people you do, that does not confer upon you an open door to infringe on the happiness of others.  And when you true, true believers dig up the temerity to get all huffy wondering why atheists disrespect you, this is fucking why!  It’s because you have failed to demonstrate the elementary cognitive capacity required to realize that people don’t rise from the dead and/or that gays are people just like you.  The idea that being religious sanctions the abuse of others should make any decent person want to retch, yet it is the people who imagine they occupy the moral high ground who will be most likely to embrace it.

It cannot be said any louder than the religious say it for us with legislation like this: religion is bad for humanity.

I want to make a joke about how Flying Spaghetti Monsterism arose because of religious people in Kansas doing amazingly thoughtless, maladaptive things, and how maybe we could use our own religion to discriminate somehow.  But I don’t want to discriminate.  I have no desire, even in jest, to argue for the opportunity.  The thought is just so awful to me.  Perhaps with a little prayer to Jesus I could find the thought less morally repulsive.

And to the believers who will email me, and they will, suggesting that I’m discriminating against religious people by calling out their bullshit, you listen up too: criticism is not discrimination.  Refusing to rent a house to someone, that’s discrimination.  Refusing them service in your restaurant, that’s discrimination.  Separate water fountains, being told you can’t marry who you love for some arbitrary, irrelevant standard belonging to someone else, that’s discrimination.  Don’t you dare to compare your privileged asses to the victims of this measure in Kansas by suggesting that somehow Christians are persecuted, especially when all you and your religion is getting on this blog is well-deserved criticism.  People like Kinzer and the people drooling over the chance to make the lives of gays miserable without fear of consequence are not the victims of persecution if they don’t get their way, and those of us with a moral barometer tuned in to the 21st century should be calling them out on not only their callousness, but also on their martyr complex.

And I’m just too fucking mad that after countless battles toward the end of discrimination in this country that we have to keep doing this shit.  I’m furious at religion for providing a shield for behavior that would otherwise be unseemly even in the surrounding camouflage of the most hicktastic episode of Jerry Springer.  Seriously, how else would this shit fly if gaggles of people weren’t convinced through faith that it’s god’s will?

Religion makes monsters of people while making them feel moral.  It’s revolting.  It’s evil.  It has no place in a civilized world.  The institution of religion, especially Christianity in the United States, should be opposed and disrespected at every opportunity for exactly the monument to archaic ignorance and immorality that it is.

Here’s the Kansas Senate roster: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/chamber/senate/roster/

Here’s the House roster: http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/chamber/house/roster/

Go yell at them.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

    The few last gasps of the Religious Right. Their viewpoint is being seen as increasingly vile to the average citizen. They’re being regulated out of their ability to hate and treat people as less than they are. Unfortunately for us, these last gasps are the most violent and vile that have come out of the religious establishment ever.

  • tubi

    Almost makes me want to move to Olathe, buy an apartment complex, and refuse to rent to Christians.

    But then I’d be just as much of a hateful douche as Lance Kinzer, so I’ll refrain.

  • Will

    This whole ordeal disgusts me for two reasons.
    A. I’m from Kansas
    B. I’m a christian
    Being a democrat from Kansas I already have to deal with the crap that happens here. It’s tragic, I hate it, but regrettably there is little, if anything, I can do to change the opinions of an entire state.
    As a christian however this breaks my heart. Your accusations against Christians are largely correct, but only because people have warped what the Bible preaches to justify their hatred, and that is the greatest tragedy of all.

    • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort


      No True Christian is a logical fallacy. These people have not twisted the Bible to fit their hatred. There are laws in your Bible against homosexuality, Paul preached against homosexuality. These people are Christian, and they buy into the same a la carte Christianity that every one does.

      Instead of saying “these people twist the Bible” say something more helpful. Say something like “I’ll be sure to speak out against this kind of vile bigotry within my church.” There’s nothing more frustrating to the persecuted minority like myself than hearing a member of the persecuting majority say “well, we’re not all like that.”

      Enough of you are. There are more than enough Christians that would want to see me in jail or killed for my sexual orientation. There are more than enough Christians that would want me to live the rest of my life bothered by my own skin, rather than allow me to present my true gender. There are more than enough Christians who call me nasty, vile names simply because I don’t believe in gods.

      You’re not helping when you tell us this sort of stuff. If you want to help – if you want to be seen as an ally – then help. Change minds in your church. Change minds in your community. It doesn’t help us at all to merely be told that all Christians don’t act like these people – we know that, thanks.

      • Will

        My apologies.
        I suppose a better way to say it is that some Christians pick and choose which parts of the Bible to practice. For example they listen to the parts condemning homosexuality but not those about loving your neighbor or not judging

        • Rob

          The bible contradicts itself. They *ALL* pick and choose.

        • Friendly

          You *don’t* pick and choose, Will? Do you wear clothing with mixed fibers? Do you ever eat pork or shellfish? Do you have any tattoos? Have you never stoned someone’s incorrigibly rebellious son? Does your church allow women to speak or uncover their hair in the sanctuary? Does your church never discipline anyone? Are any of the “spiritual gifts” (tongues, interpretation, healing, or prophecy) missing from your church? Do you ever concern yourself with what you’re going to do tomorrow? Is there ever a time when you’re not praying?

          If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, you do indeed choose which parts of the Bible to live by and which you don’t.

        • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard


          Don’t you take the parts about loving your neighbor and ignore the parts about hating gays? Isn’t that also picking and choosing?

          And by what standard do you pick and choose? How could you possibly do so if not for your personal sense of what is or is not compassionate? If you are making the moral calls on what to take out of the bible, why do you need the bible (and all its calls for ending the lives of certain folk)?

          Ditch it. Your own mind is more than sufficient. You’re better than the bible.

          • Ben

            For those truly ignorant of what the difference is:

            Read the New Testament. Christ came to make the new way. Jesus was not an instrument of hatred. He was confrontational, he pointed out others open flaws. More than anything for any atheist ignorant and so blinded by their own mistreatment of religion I offer this. Realize that in the New Testament Jesus breaks the Sabbath as well as other biblical laws for the simple facts of how outlandish they were. How many laws were in fact out dated and mishandled and made in a time that he acknowledges was different. Before you warp the words you stand against read them. A true Christian lives by the spirit, not the law. You are to never hate the sinner, you may hate a sin, but not the person. You are not a judge. You’re hatred makes you no better than those you stand against. Honestly, if you want a summary: Jesus- bringer of common sense. If nothing else admit that if you read the New Testament thoroughly he stood against hypocrites who discriminated and hated others. He made it a point to be with them in fact. Stand with the people you wish to help rather than hate others and leave them alone. Some blog won’t do good, action will.Flip a few tables, get some friends together, and call this man out for his judgement and discrimination personally rather than speak on a blog against the religion he so misguidedly uses in the name of his conflict.

          • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

            Ben – that’s just wrong.

            Jesus brought into the belief system the nastiest, most vile piece of theology ever. Jesus brought the concept of Hell. He brought into concept the idea that one can be punished for eternity for finite sins.

            Jesus was not a nice savior, the New Testament is as vile as the Old. Paul stokes the fires of anti-gay bigotry with his declaration that gays should face punishment. He also brought forth the cruel anti-woman lessons in Timothy and other epistles.

            Jesus said nothing about slaves. He was racist, he was spiteful, he was violent. He brought the idea of thought-crime, that one can be punished in Hell for thoughts (“If you lust in your mind you commit adultery, if you’re angry towards a brother you’ve committed murder.”)

            The New Testament is not good theology. It’s just as bad as the Old, if not worse.

          • Rob


            Jesus, you mean that one that said the all the old rules still apply, that Jesus?

          • NotAProphet

            Is it even worth pointing out when a ‘real’ Christian demonstrates an egregious lack of self-awareness/utter ignorance of their own religious texts? Maybe we should sick to remarking on those who do neither, as they seem to be rarer than rocking-horse shit.

      • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

        Beautifully said.

      • Rory

        Well said!

        • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

          Er. Thanks *blush* Just saying what we’re all thinking I think.

          • http://nathandst.blogspot.com NathanDST

            And if you hadn’t, someone else would have. But you’re the one who said it, and said it with eloquence. You deserve the praise.

  • http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com tommykey

    I’m an atheist, but I don’t see a conflict between a Christian believing that homosexuality is a sin but having no problem with renting an apartment to a gay person, as long as that person dutifilly pays the rent. I know that some Christians take the position that while “x” might be a sin, that is an issue between that person and god.

    My response to Christian homophobes is this, if we’re supposedly all sinners in the eyes of god, then why are homosexuals targeted for special discriminatory behavior?

    • eric

      Most of these conservative christians would’ve targeted mixed-race couples a generation ago. A generation or two before that, they would’ve discriminated against all blacks. Many of them probably would STILL target Catholics, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists, if the law allows.

      IOW the answer to your question is: its not so much a special hatred for gays, as it is a legal inability to discriminate against all the other groups they’d like to discriminate against. Gays just happen to be one of the last groups against which its socially acceptable to show bigotry.

  • Ryan

    “Fucking Christ, this is why we atheists loath power in the hands religion, particularly a religion with a history saturated with divinely ordained prejudice.”

    Umm, isn’t it clear by now that “religion” == “saturated with divinely ordained prejudice”? It seems to me that the super-set and sub-set are equivalent.

  • TV200

    What fucking part of your rights end where someone else’s begin do they not understand.

    • N. Nescio

      They’ve got God on their side — they don’t give a shit about anybody else’s ‘rights’.

  • Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist

    That would be the part where certain other people have any rights at all.

  • Earl

    I would look in the mirror. It seems that your hatred for Christians is comparable to some of theirs’ towards individuals convictions.

    No one should be forced to rent to someone that that have moral objections against. While it might not be [politically correct, they should still have right.

    While it isn’t truely compariable, but what if they didn’t want to rent to a convicted murderer? Could that murderer sue them so that they had to rent to them if the murderer could pay the rent.

    I suggest people should just move on from the hate and instead try to find a place where acceptance is the standard rather than trying to tear down people’s religous walls and belief, regardless of how messed up they are. Sometimes you just to be the bigger man/women and just walk away.

    • kagekiri

      Yeah, it’s not truly comparable at all. Sexual orientation is not a choice like murder is.

      It’s more like racist signs and separate but equal facilities. You can’t say “Oh, walk away and go get your own bathroom, water fountain, and apartment building, you make me uncomfortable because you’re not white.”

      You shouldn’t get to be a racist or homophobic asshole for bullshit religious reasons.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

      Absolutely! Because a gay person has demonstrated they are a potential threat to those around them just like a murderer. And you wouldn’t want a murderer in your restaurant, so why should you feel bad about telling black people they shouldn’t eat there if you don’t like them? There are other restaraunts for those rabble.

      Well Earl, the simple and obvious fact is that this is why anti-discrimination laws exist. Because some people might be totally good people (unlike a murderer) who need protection from people who cannot see the difference between a character trait and a propensity for harming others. Religion is usually helpful in this.

    • MJtheProphet

      While it isn’t truely compariable, but what if they didn’t want to rent to a convicted murderer? Could that murderer sue them so that they had to rent to them if the murderer could pay the rent.

      Yes, he could. Because that’s discriminatory. That’s how this works. No one has the right to take away someone else’s rights.

      I suggest people should just move on from the hate and instead try to find a place where acceptance is the standard rather than trying to tear down people’s religous walls and belief, regardless of how messed up they are. Sometimes you just to be the bigger man/women and just walk away.

      Go where? It’s a state law! Are you really going to argue “If you don’t like it when people are allowed to discriminate against you, just leave the state”? Sure, that’s entirely feasible for every member of a disenfranchised minority. This is a clear example of tyranny of the majority. You know, that thing the government is supposed to protect minorities against.

    • Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist

      Fuck you. You don’t get to compare gays to murderers, even with the caveat that it isn’t ‘truely compariable’ (sic). You got that bloody right: gays aren’t comparable to murders.

      And fuck you for suggesting that gays just walk away from defending their own rights, like rights to housing. No one is ‘trying to tear down people’s religious walls and belief’ (sic) by renting a place to live.

      Treading on the rights of others looks exactly like enshrining in law the right to discriminate against someone else. Since when, in a supposedly secular nation like the US, have the personal religious beliefs of certain people required that others abide by them or be subjected to them?

      Gays do not have to walk away from a fight for their rights. You may have noticed that the only people losing any rights by force of this legislation are gays.

      I don’t even want to waste time asking you the obvious rhetorical questions this poses, so instead I’ll cut to it. You are either disingenuous, stupid, a bigot or any combination thereof. People who don’t have any of those characteristics don’t say write such thoughtless, stupid shit.

    • Friendly

      No one should be forced to rent to someone that that have moral objections against.

      “I have a moral objection to something that Earl guy said on a blog once. I’m not going to rent to him. All the other landlords in town are in agreement with me. Guess he’s gonna have to find somewhere else to live! Heh, heh…”

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard


      I suggest people should just move on from the hate and instead try to find a place where acceptance is the standard rather than trying to tear down people’s religous walls and belief, regardless of how messed up they are.

      If things are messed up, why fight it? Just be complacent and stop trying to protect others.

      Because people’s beliefs are messed up is the EXACT reason we should fight them. Beliefs govern actions, and actions affect our neighbors. You don’t tell the victim to shut up and move on – that’s a recipe for inviting abuse.

    • carlie

      It’s not getting to have a place to live that’s a privilege, it’s being able to run a business that rents living spaces to people that’s a privilege.

      Once you enter the public sphere, yes, you do have to not discriminate against people on the basis of who they are. That’s part of the deal of getting to make money off of offering things to people. You want to rent a room to your friend’s kid under the table, fine. You want to deny that kid’s sibling the ability to rent under the table from you, fine. But you want to be an actual landlord who puts ads in the paper to drum up business and who gets tax breaks from their business of renting rooms to people, then yeah, you have to buy into the whole social contract thing.

    • N. Nescio

      I was going to reply to all of your post, but everybody else has done such a nice job of shredding your idiocy that I’m going to confine myself to this one passage to minimize redundancy:

      No one should be forced to rent to someone that that have moral objections against. While it might not be [politically correct, they should still have right.

      So if a devout Mormon landlord with moral objections against those bearing the curse of Ham wants to refuse to rent to black people, they ought to be able to do so?

      Also, it’s not that it’s not ‘politically correct’, it’s that it’s illegal. Because the US is a nation governed by secular law, not the religious laws held by the majority group of representatives.

      PS: fuck you and the winged horse you flew in on.

    • eric

      You want to be able to refuse service to people because of their skin color. Their age. Their sex. Their orientation. And you say WE need find a place where acceptance is the standard???

      Obviously, that place is not Earl’s hotel.

    • http://ms-daisy-cutter.dreamwidth.org/ Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform

      Fuck off, you whining, bigoted piece of shit.

      And, no, nobody should have to be the “bigger man” (or woman, or whatever) and give up their basic rights in order to cater to the superstition-fueled hatred of assholes like you.

    • Nepenthe

      While it’s probably uncharitable to pile on and squash all the eloquent folk underneath me and on top of you:

      Ex-convicts have rights too. In particular, they have a right to obtain housing. The difficulty of re-entry into society at large following imprisonment is especially concerning given how unreliable and biased the “justice” system is.

    • Alex

      I think there is a further problem here that no one has pointed out. Earl says:

      I suggest people should just move on from the hate and instead try to find a place where acceptance is the standard rather than trying to tear down people’s religous walls and belief, regardless of how messed up they are. Sometimes you just to be the bigger man/women and just walk away.

      A lot of the people affected by these discrimination laws are not able to walk away; they don’t have the resources to move, they can’t afford more expensive housing elsewhere, or they need whatever job they can get. By suggesting that people be the bigger women/man you are just showing your privilege.

    • NotAProphet

      Earl, I don’t know what the laws are where you live, but within my own jurisdiction, and morally, the answer to your question is absolutely yes. If someone has served their sentence and been released then they have been adjudged to have repaid their debt to society, and be suitable to rejoin it, so who the hell are you to discriminate against them as an’undesirable’based on past mistakes for which they have atoned!? Fuck’s sake, even Jesus will forgive them just for bring truly sorry, without 25 years inside!

      This in no way detracts from the point already made that a murderer and a gay person/black/woman/atheist (remember the Cranston florists) are hardly equivalent!

  • seraph

    I honestly cannot see this standing up in the supreme court. Freedom of religion also means you must tolerate people who are different in religious views.

    • kagekiri

      Well, there are Christian and Catholic gay people; I’ve met a few who somehow reconcile the two. So it’s homophobia more than religious intolerance of other religions.

  • oldebabe

    As you must know, one doesn’t have to be a atheist to dislike, refuse and renounce religion. Religions, when inspected, themselves can make people non-religious – deists, agnostics, and like me, just plain old skeptics.

    It isn’t only specific religions that make people hate and vilify others who are not of their own ilk, however, but most religions can be counted on to supply all kinds of incentives to do just that.

    • Thomathy, Holy Trinity of Conflation: Atheist-Secularist-Darwinist

      Was that divinely revealed to you post-concussion or are you just playing at Captain Obvious for fun? No religion is not necessary nor sufficient for hate and it obviously is a factor. Yay! Here’s your cookie.

      Now, what has that to do with legislation, proposed, supported and passed by nominal Christians (and Christians of all sorts of adjectives) that legalises the discrimination of gays based on religious beliefs?

      I should also ask you if you’re playing at Captain Irrelevant for fun too?

  • Friendly

    Teeny quibble about a word in the OP: “wretch” should be “retch”.

  • dpearson

    The next bill up for vote in Kansas is to change the state motto from ‘Ad astra per aspera’ to ‘Ad infernum cum aequalitas’
    (To hell with equality).

  • Epistaxis

    I used to think tornadoes were the most destructive things in Kansas, then I got a good view of their state legislature.

    Actuarially, this might not be hyperbole. Kansas gets several dozen tornadoes a year and the worse ones may destroy hundreds of homes. The population of Kansas is about three million, and if we conservatively figure that 1% of them are gay, then this bill could cause 30,000 Kansans to be thrown out of their homes.

  • Mark

    I wonder why it is that you have not included a link to the bill so that your fellow skeptics can better vet both your, and the article’s interpretation of the bill. I would think that those pursuing truth and reason would want to evaluate from the source.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd JT Eberhard

      The same reason most people don’t link scientific studies when citing the news story that talked about it: because I read it in a news article.

      If you want to read the whole bill, fill your boots. In the time you spent coming here to try and spread doubt (presumably without reading the bill or the article first) and expecting me to hold your hand and walk you to google you could’ve looked the thing up yourself if a news article is insufficient for you.

      • Mark

        I guess we can assume this is the bill?


        If so, what specific text in the bill do you find offensive?

        • Marshall

          Lines 15-19 on page one:

          (2) “Compelling governmental interest” shall not include prohibition
          of a practice or policy of discrimination against individuals in employment
          relations, in access to free and public accommodations or in housing,
          except as set forth in K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq., and amendments thereto, and
          the laws and constitution of the United States.

          This text, in the context of the whole of the rest of the bill, would allow Christians to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in, as the bill puts it “employment relations, in access to free and public accommodations or in housing”. The ONLY possible purpose of the bill is to allow discrimination on religious grounds.

          • Mark

            Good, I am glad someone here actually read the “entire” three-page bill instead of parroting one-sided articles. This is the context in which “compelling government interest” is used:

            “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless such government demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that application of the burden to the person: (1) Is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” (section 2, page 1, line 36 through page 2, line 6)

            You’ll also want to check out K.S.A. 44-1001 as mentioned in and cannot be superseded by HB2384:


            I don’t really see anything wrong with the bill and see plenty of opportunity for either side to hash specific cases out in a judicial setting. Further, what I like about the bill is that it prevents purposeful and obnoxious antagonizing of religious people, institutions, and businesses. On the other hand, it suitably employs a clause against fraudulent claims.

          • http://ms-daisy-cutter.dreamwidth.org/ Ms. Daisy Cutter, Gynofascist in a Spiffy Hugo Boss Uniform

            purposeful and obnoxious antagonizing of religious people, institutions, and businesses.

            Yeah, those terrible GLBT people, antagonizing all those good xtians by existing and needing housing and jobs.

            Fuck you, Mark.

        • Marshall

          Really? Are you saying you don’t see how it allows religious believers to discriminate against homosexuals or are you saying you don’t think there is anything wrong with that? Because it’s pretty clear, particularly considering the section I quoted, that this is what the bill does. Hell, Kinzer SAYS HIMSELF that’s what it does. Additionally, the rest of the bill really only reaffirms that the first amendment applies to Kansas.

          You’ll also want to check out K.S.A. 44-1001 as mentioned in and cannot be superseded by HB2384:

          Yeah, about that. You know what isn’t covered there? SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

          So what you have is a bill which has only one appreciable effect, which is to allow discrimination in housing and hiring practices based on sexual orientation so long as you can claim a religious basis for that discrimination. How is that right? Why should we want this bill? What other effect would the bill have? I’m not a lawyer, but it’s not exactly a complicated bill, and I don’t see anything there that has any effect other than allowing religiously motivated bigotry to play a role in housing and employment decisions.

  • fastlane

    As long as employers are also allowed to fire people for being religious fucknuts.

    Goose…gander, all that.

    I’m so glad I got out of that shithole state.

    I would like to see someone challenge this on non-discrimination grounds, but from an over the top, take it to the extreme, ‘we want to discriminate against anyone’ stance.

    So since they exclusively single out gay people, someone should challenge this law because it doesn’t explicitly allow them to discriminate against (list of as many currently non-protective status people as we can come up with: single parents, blond people, brunettes, redheads, short people….)

    Make it very obvious that they are only singling out this one group, based solely on religious grounds, and it would be slam dunk to overturn.

    • Nepenthe

      I for one will not rest until I can discriminate against the left-handed spawn of Satan. I mean, would you want to live next door to a Southpaw!?

  • Natalie

    I have a moral objection to people who are fans of Nickleback. Does that mean if I find out they are a fan of that band, I can deny them housing?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Abstruse.Oddity fredricmartin


  • http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/christ-and-nothing-28 j

    If it weren’t for what you call “religion” ie: Christianity civilization as we know it would not exist. Somebody look up David Bentley Hart’s “Christ or Nothing”


  • http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/christ-and-nothing-28 j

    Furthermore, any of you readers who believe in common decency and human rights, and agree with the assertion that humans have inherent worth are essential secular Christians. Read Bentley Hart, complain later. If you don’t read it, then you can’t accuse Christians of being bigots or biased.

    • cmv

      Yes, yes we can, for all of the reasons cited above and more. To label anyone who believes in common decency a “secular Christian” is disingenuous at best. There are many religions in the world which, long before stories of a Jewish preacher returned from the dead made it out of the middle east, taught common decency. The particular issue brought up in this post is about a group of Christians who want legal protection to exercise their bigotry.

      Hart has one thing right, if for the wrong reasons; without Christianity we wouldn’t have had the dark ages, and without Islam, the scientific flowering of the middle east would likely have continued. In other words, we would be much further developed than the 2 centuries of slowly removing the shackles of religion have allowed us to become.

      Try retreading the original piece. Read it a third time. Maybe by the fourth you will start to comprehend it.

      • http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Revolution-Fashionable-ebook/dp/B0024F9YSI/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1333180636&sr=1-1 j

        Hart’s essay is basically a shortened version of the same principles and concepts he discusses within his larger work “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and It’s Fashionable Enemies”. Before you assert that Hart is somehow bolstering your argument of the evils of religion, you need to delve into this book; easily found on Amazon, even in digital download. I find it ironic that you talk about the evils of religion, but then admit that religions are capable of teaching “decency”. Furthermore, your idea of religion has been lumped into one universal category that simply does not exist.

        My point is not to say that there is no shred of decency present in other religions of the world, but to show that the life that YOU enjoy in western society, with all the freedoms, liberties, rights you hold dear, would simply not exist were it not for the Christian influence in the development of the western world. Christianity truly revolutionize the world–read Hart’s book, and don’t try to tell me that the extent of the Christian revolution was religious bigotry and thought-police. Hart’s book examines the history of Christianity, and debunks historical myths surrounding the discussions in forums like these.

        I am ready for some thinking atheists to come out and justify their argument. The majority of humankind for, as far as we know, all of our existence has been deeply spiritual and religious, filled with tradition and a respect for community. And since we have the Prius and the internet, we are justified in simply throwing it all away?

        Finally, my comment about not being able to accuse Christians of being bigots or biased was not meant to say that Christians aren’t bigoted, or even biased (which none of us can be free of) or that they can not be justifiably labeled as such when appropriate. It was to point our the hypocrisy of the writer of the article, as he feigns humility and victimization at the hands of Christians (equally entitled to their beliefs) and finishes the piece by calling Christianity “evil” and calling for it to be “opposed and disrespected at every opportunity for exactly the monument to archaic ignorance and immorality that it is.”

        Is it just me or does this REEK of moral elitism?

        My suggestion to you is to read Hart’s book, and try not to simply hear what you want to hear. Then, after you get his point, disagree to your heart’s content. Ignorance is bliss, right?


        • cmv

          J, you are deluded.
          It was not until the breaking of the stranglehold of religious leadership that western civilization once again began to blossom 400-odd years ago. We lost 1000 years to the dark ages of Christian thought police. Anyone who expressed ideas which did not conform to scripture was cast out and/or killed. Your friend Hart is rewriting history, and I would not pay to read his crap.

    • Marshall

      Furthermore, any of you readers who believe in common decency and human rights, and agree with the assertion that humans have inherent worth are essential secular Christians.

      No, you don’t get to redefine ‘Christian’ as ‘decent person’ and then appropriate the decency of atheists in an attempt to validate your ridiculous religious delusions. What would you call a Muslim who believes in common decency and human rights, an ‘Islamic Christian’? What about a Buddhist? What about a Hindu?

      On top of that, if you’ve ever even READ the Bible, you should know that it does NOT support human rights. Instead, it suggests that people who disbelieve should be killed, that people who are gay should be killed, that ‘witchcraft’ should be punishable by death. And I honestly do not give an eighth of a shit if you think that those rules don’t apply under the ‘new covenant’ (an excuse that the Bible doesn’t actually provide), you would still HAVE to accept that at some point in the past God commanded his followers to KILL the above groups and many more, to take slaves, and to force rape victims to marry their rapists.

      The fact that Christians are STILL, in the twenty first century, arguing that they should be allowed under the law to violate the human rights of others should be all that needs to be pointed out, really. But somehow you’re still here, arguing that it never would have occurred to us to treat each other with decency and respect if it weren’t for a religion that largely owes its continued existence to almost two millennia of conquest and bloodshed and oppression; and you’re doing so in the comments of a post about people wanting their refusal to treat others with decency and respect enshrined in law on the basis of that same religion.

      Read Bentley Hart, complain later. If you don’t read it, then you can’t accuse Christians of being bigots or biased.

      Yeah, I can and I will. What, you think that if I read Bentley Hart I won’t find it a display of bigotry to insist that you be allowed to discriminate against people who are gay because you believe in ridiculous nonsense?

      The majority of humankind for, as far as we know, all of our existence has been deeply spiritual and religious, filled with tradition and a respect for community.

      SO. FUCKING. WHAT. Something isn’t true just because lots of people have believed it for a long time. Why aren’t you a Hindu? Hinduism has been believed for longer than Christianity! And don’t try to tie ‘respect for community’ to ‘spiritual and religious’ as though the former cannot exist without the latter. That’s utter bullshit.

      And since we have the Prius and the internet, we are justified in simply throwing it all away?

      No, we are justified in simply throwing it all away because for all of the time that people have believed in gods and demons and monsters and leprechauns, not ONE person has ever been able to provide anything even remotely resembling evidence that any of those things actually EXIST! It really isn’t that difficult: the only things worthy of being believed are things which can be shown to be TRUE, or at the very least LIKELY TO BE TRUE. But since you brought up the Prius and the internet, where do you think those things came from? Prayer? NO, it took centuries of work in multiple scientific fields to come up with the technology responsible for both of those things, scientific advancement that was consistently slowed or stopped by religious authorities who were displeased that the study of reality was producing results that contradicted the sources of their phony authority. Had it not been for the ‘Christian influence’ you claim is necessary for people to realize that people are people, we could very well have advanced technologically a great deal more quickly than we have!

      Is it just me or does this REEK of moral elitism?

      What, you mean Christians asking to be allowed under the law to discriminate against homosexuals? Yeah, that’s some pretty terrible moral elitism, it just SCREAMS… Wait… What’s that? You meant the ending of this blog post? REALLY?!

      You’re an asshole. Put your religious privilege away and stop waving it in front of people’s faces while calling them arrogant for asking you to stop. It’s annoying at best and a precursor to unspeakable acts of evil at worst, and I’m getting tired of it.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Revolution-Fashionable-ebook/dp/B0024F9YSI/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1333180636&sr=1-1 j

    Furthermore, can someone out there explain how morality works without a God that is deeply involved with his creation?

    I find it arrogant and frightening that the writer of this initial article seems to think that his secular understanding of morality and immorality somehow are superior to the Judeo-Christian frame of reference. As far as I am concerned, the writer has over two thousand years of Christianity, and before that, millenniums of monotheistic “religion” to contend with, and whether he likes it or not, he is probably more “Christian” than he realizes.

    • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort

      Morality works easily without a god. It works better without a god. Morality is a simple dualistic thought:

      First, minimize suffering. Second, maximize happiness.

      That’s all. No need to invoke God or gods or spirits of nature or anything like that. If someone needs help, if someone’s suffering, then I must do everything I can to minimize that suffering. If I can provide something that will make someone happy, then I should do it – unless the action will harm someone else.

      Christianity and religion as a whole is a selfish morality. Religious people do good because they’re afraid of the consequences. They’re afraid some deity will punish them if they don’t do good things – the level of “goodness” of those things is up for debate, since we’re talking about good forthright Christians here denying homes to people they don’t like.

      Yet while they’re sitting there preaching that their morality is better and religion is the only way to be moral (fuck you for that thought by the way) their concern is what kind of mansion they’ll get in the afterlife.

      I don’t give a rat’s ass about the consequences of my actions in some afterlife or anything like that. I care about the here and now. My actions, my consequences, what do they do now. If I provide for a poor man by buying him a sandwich, it’s not to curry favor with a deity, it’s because the poor man needs to eat.

    • cmv

      Read the Judeo-Christian rule book. If you find any of the actions in the new or old testaments to be morally reprehensible, then you are more secular in your morality than you think. If you don’t find the condoning of rape (Judges 21:10-24, Deuteronomy 21:10-14), murder (Proverbs 20:20, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13), genocide (Numbers 33:50-52), and slavery (Exodus 21:7-11, Ephesians 6:5) be immoral, then you are not as moral as you claim to be.

    • Tony

      There’s nothing more arrogant and frightening than a devout believer. Given that world domination is the goal of christianity, everyone should be against that religion (just as everyone with an 2/3 oz of empathy should despise the catholic church for the decades long child rape systemic problem-as institutionalized as this problem was and is, the gears of this sell/rape/coverup were likely turning for many more decades if not centuries prior to significant documentation). Congratulations for realizing that religions offer no solutions to real world problems, but they exacerbate existing problems immensely. I know how scary it can be. But really, if you were a good person with the man in the sky, you’ll still be good without him. Sorry to say there are no perks about being an atheist (I suppose that little thing about valuing empirical evidence, science, logic, reason and rationality could be seen as a *small* perk; especially since utilizing those tools is quite effective at understand ourselves and the world around us. Religion just takes a stab in the dark. Of course you probably knew all that, since All Good Christians (TM) have read the bible front to back.

      As for your morality questions,
      As a gay atheist of color, I find it wonderful when theists open their eyes and desire to learn and comprehend our existence:

      Furthermore, can someone out there explain how morality works without a God that is deeply involved with his creation?

      This is what I’m talking about. Clearly you’re starting to toss off the shackles of religion. Asking this question is one of the steps to freeing your mind (other questions you may find yourself asking:
      1. How did Noah and his family create an ark:
      -that was finished in seven days
      -that could hold every ‘kind’ of creature on Earth (however “kind” is defined as (1 of each or 2 pair of each)
      2. How did Noah and his family scour the entire Earth in under seven days to *find* all the animals?
      3. How did Noah and his family care for the animals on the ark (or themselves for that matter; all that urine and fecal matter couldn’t have been good)?
      4. How did they keep carnivores separate from their prey?
      5. How long did it last? 40 days? 150?
      6. How did god create day and night before he installed the ‘lights in the vault of the sky’?
      7. Why did god create ‘day’ and ‘night’ twice?
      8. Why/How did god create plants before he created the ‘lights in the vault of the sky’ ?
      9. Why no mention of the dinosaurs (or anything related, such as fossils)?
      two of my favorites:

      10. Why did it take an omnipotent deity 6 days to create *anything*?
      11. Why would an omnipotent deity need to rest (on the seventh day)?

      12. Is Eve a spare rib or not?
      13. Why did god create Adam and Eve twice?
      14. Humans are made of dust of the Earth?
      15. If god didn’t create rain until Genesis 2, where did the water from the heavens come from?
      16. He created vegetables and trees in G1, but no rain for them to survive (until G2)?
      17. When god creates Adam and Eve-the first time-he does so without making Eve derived from Adam. This stands at odds with the misogynistic (woman hating) god most atheists and believers know of.
      18. Why do people think the bible was originally written in English?
      19. Why did god not make the bible *either* literal or metaphorical?
      20. Why didn’t/couldn’t god spread his message on his own?
      21. Where on the ark were the freshwater and saltwater oceans?
      22. Why did god make faith a virtue? Since faith is belief without evidence (which is far different than belief *with* evidence; that would the scientific world) why would he handicap his chosen people by denying them the critical thinking skills necessary to help understand the world around them?
      23. Why did god punish Adam and Eve? He’s omnipotent and omniscient. That means he’s able to do *anything* and knows *everything* (that happened, is happening and will happen). So knowing everything, he used his omnipotence to create humans whom he gets mad at repeatedly for doing what he *knew* they were going to do.
      25. Why does god not condemn slavery? Why does he not condemn rape? Why does he not condemn needless murder of humans AND animals?
      These are just a few of the many. many. questions the bible raises (many of those times its b/c the bible contradicts itself).

      Katherine explained quite nicely how morality works without religion. Here’s another hint J: there were other cultures *long* before christianity and they had their own morals too. There are actually people, scientists even, who think that morality may had socio-biological origins. Nifty, huh?
      I figured since you seem to be on the path to unlocking your true potential* by casting aside childish unsupported superstitions (again, I must commend you for the strength of character to consign religious beliefs and all other superstition to the the trash bins of history; so few people can do it; you truly are a special individual) I would do what I can to aid you on the path to enlightenment**.


      Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. The adjective moral is synonymous with “good” or “right.” Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles

      I figured a clear cut definition of morality would aid you immensely in the months and years to come as you encounter theists and their ‘arguments’. There’s a great segue. Other sites that are helpful in learning about issues on the radar of atheists:


      If you visit the former, you should read up on logical fallacies. Robert Carroll has done a great job with his site. Its very easy to use, and is basically a dictionary for skeptics. Please keep us posted on your journey out of religion.


      * , **

      Many who reject the larger religions will turn to smaller ones, or cults, or something new-agey. I wouldn’t normally use any woo-ish terms like ‘true potential’ or ‘enlightenment’, but since you’re likely on unsure footing with regard to leaving your religious beliefs behind, I figured a little woo to break your fall from a lotta woo couldn’t hurt.

      • NotAProphet

        You forgot how Adam and Eve begat the whole human race when they had only sons.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Revolution-Fashionable-ebook/dp/B0024F9YSI/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1333180636&sr=1-1 j

    correction *almost two-thousand

  • silverbuttons

    Thank you, Kansas, for dragging America one step closer to the Bronze Age mentality that gave us the Old Testament.

  • Lauren

    4 words. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! if religious people want to be narrow minded bigots, by all means, go for it. but how on earth are you giving them go ahead to be irrationally hateful??

    how does someone being gay effect the way they work, or others work? IT DOESN’T!


  • Lauren

    *correction 5 words. i dont wanna hear it, its called a typo, get over it.

  • dee williams

    WTF did I just read!?! That whole xtain speel has to be the largest pile of manure since the buy bull. Actually I live in Tex-Ass, so I understand having to put up with religious knob gobblers. I’ve had the ‘if you don’t like it leave! ‘ Well since I’m not afraid in the least of inbred cousin fuckers, who live in a state who’s biggest claim to fame is a delapedated building that looks like a two car carport, and the worst president any democratic country has ever known. If telling me to get out is all you got. Go fuck your sister somemore.

  • a representative’s kid

    I hope whoever wrote this article realizes that by blatantly trashing Christianity, he’s being very hypocritical. People always preach on the “rights of homosexuality” but what about the rights of everyone else? I am not saying that people who support the rights of homosexuals are awful people, but when you mock others beliefs simply because they don’t agree with you, your point does not get across. You have the right to believe that homosexuals have the right to get married and etc., and I have the right to believe it is against what I believe. Being called a homophobe is just as disrespectful and rude as for someone else to call a gay person a fag. Maybe you should just step back and realize that gays aren’t the only ones with the rights to their beliefs.

  • a representative’s kid

    Also, if you’re planning on actually trying to yell at the kind representatives I have the privilege of knowing, the phone numbers won’t do you any good. Considering the session is over and none of them are currently working in Topeka.