Kansas being dumb. Also blankets being soft.

Not to be outdone by Arkansas, Kansas Republicans are going to show Obama how to really make the economy a priority

The bill would prohibit strip clubs, adult stores and other sexually oriented businesses from locating within 1,000 feet of schools, libraries, public parks, licensed day-care centers and houses of worship.

Yeah, churches have a right to not have stores that help to make sex more fun right next to them.  Vibrators are immoral.

Some critics of the bill said the measure would shut down such businesses and put at least 2,500 Kansans out of work.

But Patton said the bill only imposes “narrow” regulations and prevents sexually oriented businesses — called “SOBs” by the measure’s backers — from clustering in communities.

How’s that free market working out for you, oh party of small government?  Republicans: friend to small businesses…unless they’re doing stuff that offends their religion.  Why the fuck should the church get priority over someone else’s business?  How about this: if you don’t want your church next a sex shop, or a gas station, or a movie theater, or whatever, move it your own damn selves instead of putting people out of work.  Or, even better, don’t open a church next to a sex shop.  Also fuck you.

Here’s what gets me: they want this prohibition because, presumably, sex shops harm communities.  But they’re not saying that sex shops can’t open up, just that they can’t open up next to certain buildings…as though people who visit libraries don’t also like vibrators.  By the GOP’s reasoning, I must be the only one who spends time at libraries and sex shops.  I rule.

If they harm communities, why only dictate where these salacious businesses can operate within communities?  It’s like saying “This could really negatively impact your life if you can see it from the church parking lot, but if it’s next to your home where the kids play in the yard, fuck it.”  Is there any doubt that this is like so many other pieces of GOP legislation: prioritizing trying to impose their archaic sexual standards on everyone…and we’ll get to all that economy stuff later?

You know, if the priority is restricting what harms communities, what about organizations that deprive participating citizens of 10% of their income, occupy land in the city that could be used for businesses or residences, and pay no taxes…all while steering people away from things that make sex more enjoyable?  Get rid of those and we can have more places where sex shops could open.  :)

FAITH: Jesus is not the answer to this question.
POLITICS: Boehner calls Obama an “anti-war President.”
POLITICS & GAY RIGHTS: Arkansas about to pass an anti-gay law just like Indiana’s.
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.

  • Glodson

    The call them SOBs! Get it! I’m sure that’s just a happy coincidence.

    • AJ

      Actually, I think it’s what passes for clever among these people.

  • JTP

    I think you are misreading their motivations. It’s not so much that they harm the community (I’m sure many of the sponsors shop there), I think this is a “what about the children?!” moment. All of those places are where children congregate, and we must prevent children from ever learning that sex is pleasurable at all costs.

    • Michaelyn

      That may be, but that’s not been said anywhere. The people supporting this bill are saying these businesses bring crime to communities. That’s their official reasoning behind the bill.

      • invivoMark

        Wow! As a normal, sex-enjoying human being, I find that reasoning offensive!

    • Glodson

      I don’t think they are motivated by that.

      In fact, I would imagine that the motivation is to enforce their own sexual morality onto everyone by a de facto banning of those businesses. Look at the restriction, 1000 feet away from all schools, day cares, churches, parks and libraries.

      They are looking to force those businesses away from the population centers, making it harder for them to make money.

      • http://smingleigh.wordpress.com Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

        I wonder if it would be followed up with a church being opened up within 1000 feet every time one of those businesses finds new premises, forcing another move?

        • Glodson

          Man, I would be so pissed.

          I remember hating to have to drive the extra distance to see some boobs after church.

  • Michaelyn

    See all the headlines are calling this the “strip club bill.” I didn’t realize it affected all adult stores until I did some reading. Either way, this is stupid.
    Also, our university newspaper reported that the bill would ban the selling of alcohol inside these businesses, but honestly I don’t trust our university paper to get anything right, so I’m trying to find a better source.

    • unbound

      That actually brings up an important point about journalism (or the lack thereof). Why can’t any of these newspapers / journalists list out the bill number? Are they afraid we will look it up ourselves?

      I’m not sure if Kansas has their bill information online, but the problem occurs with journalism at the national level. All the information is available via thomas.loc.gov if the newspaper was only willing to give us the number.

      • Glodson

        Here is the bill.

        I skimmed it, it said exactly what I thought it would. But I just skimmed it. On a side note, I would like to see the “studies” that Patton says that prompted this bill.

    • unbound

      Found the bill (mentioned in only one article) – http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2054_00_0000.pdf

      The bill would prohibit the sale of alcohol (page 7). It also prevents them from being open from midnight to 6 am.

      Quite a few other rules regarding behavior, dress, viewable areas, etc are specified in this regarding a “SOB”.

  • Watry

    By including ‘houses of worship’, they’re pretty much guaranteeing these places can’t be anywhere at all. Which I suspect was part of the intent.

    • BradC

      Bingo. My thoughts exactly, you can’t go 1000 feet in some towns without hitting 2 or more churches.

      • http://smingleigh.wordpress.com Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

        Phase II: No other-religion places of worship within 1000 feet of a church.
        Phase III: “Church” now only encompasses a particular set of denominations, others are regarded as “other-religion places of worship”.

  • ganner

    Our society would probably be a lot better off if, this Sunday, a lot of uptight people who would normally go to church would instead take their tithe, go buy a sex toy or some lingerie or massage oil and go have a good time with themselves or with partners.

  • iknklast

    I was reading about something similar in Alabama a few years ago, they criminalized the sale of sex toys. The article I was reading was quoting a woman who ran one of the shops, where she indicated that a majority of her customers were adult married women who were regular church-attenders, and felt they were totally within reason to want something to spice up their marriage (I’m inclined to agree, but I would agree even if they weren’t married church going women). I think the statute is still in place, but I don’t know for sure. I know there were some challenges to its constitutionality.

    Perhaps if everyone were to realize that not everyone that goes to these things is in the category generally reserved as “bad”, then they would come to realize that the mere use of sex toys doesn’t make people “bad”, and fewer people would be relegated to that category? Or am I just dreaming?

    • Anonymous

      Yes, sex toys are still “illegal” in Alabama (by which I mean that the statute is on the books, but I have yet to hear of even one case where it’s actually been enforced). The sex shops down here continue to operate, although one in particular has this fantastic warning on its website:
      “[B]y asking to purchase an item you represent and warrant that your purchase and any resulting sale of the product is for a bona fide medical, scientific, educational, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose.” Well, of course I bought my vibrator for strictly educational reasons! What makes you think I would do something evil like enjoy it? Oh, that orgasm? Medically necessary. Absolutely.

      • Steve

        I still don’t know what a “law enforcement” purpose is. I doubt the police buys their handcuffs in sex shops.

  • J.A.F.O.

    Why are you so hung up on sex?

    • Nate Frein

      How, exactly, is JT hung up on sex?

    • Glodson

      I can’t speak for anyone else, but sex is fucking fantastic. You should try it sometime with any number of consenting adults.

    • http://smingleigh.wordpress.com Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)

      It’s that bizarre projection thing again.

      Attempt to legislate something: Perfectly normal.
      Commenting on the attempted legislation: Why are you so obsessed?

  • smrnda

    Someone should pass an ordinance banning places of worship from being too close to bars, strip clubs, sex toy shops, liquor stores or any other type of business that might be harmed by the presence of a house of worship.

    This seems to be placing an undue burden on businesses which have been operating within the law; it could easily put them out of business. It seems a bit unfair to piss and shit on legitimate businesses which, unlike churches, pay taxes.

    • Brad1990

      So someone should pass an ordinance banning places of worship from being within a 1000 ft of anywhere fun? That sounds reasonable, they do tend to ruin any and all fun. This would clearly represent a threat to the success of a business.

      That said, you do have to balance it against the pleasure of being batshit drunk within full view of the church as everyone comes spilling out of midnight mass…

  • Brad1990

    ” sexually oriented businesses — called “SOBs” by the measure’s backers”


    • baal

      Right wing clever naming and all.

      There was a story out of Florida a while back about released sex offenders. They were under a similar “not with in ____ yards” rule and, as a result, ended up living under the same bridge.
      Aside from the obvious forcing of these businesses out of some entire neighborhoods or parts of the city, they less obviously push the same businesses to the same less developed less safe more crime ridden sections. This then allows the bills proponents to ‘prove’ that the sex shops create the criminality.

      On a different note, the sex bad dirty dirty we’re pure pure pure mindset underlies a lot of abuse against women and unhealthy attitudes about sex. Libby Anne does a good job of making that argument with some regularity on her blog.

  • Perdurabo

    Actually, it’s illegal for cities to completely “Zone” out a presumably legal use just because they don’t like it, or because it destroys their oh-so-delicate sensibilities. Allowances have to be made. Usually there are heavy commercial or industrial zones in cities that allow for this use, and a city can be sued if they disallow the use due to strategically placed churches, libraries and schools(And I have seen cities try and do just that – they fail every time). Plus, any SOBs(a term which has been around for decades btw) that already exist should be grandfathered. I think sex shops and churches should be placed right next to one another – competitive spirit and all….