Conquer Club

WTF is up with the GOP? Is it genuinely supportive
of Kansas' attempt to return to 1960s intolerance?

Nope. Next?

A bill critics say would allow open discrimination against homosexuals easily passed the Kansas House but now appears doomed in the Senate.
Senate President Susan Wagle, in a statement late Thursday, said a majority of the Republicans in the upper house will not vote for the bill, the Kansas City (Mo.) Star reported.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/02/ ... z2tc9duezW

The autonomy of the state, sabotaged by the tyranny of centralized government.

I don't get politicians sometimes.

This bill should be redrafted. I think it had too much fiscal policy emphasis in it.


--Andy

mrswdk wrote:The autonomy of the state, sabotaged by the tyranny of centralized government.

That makes a nice fable.

Sullivan over reacting and connecting dots that aren't there, as usual. He must have been up against a deadline for his article.

Every bill that is ever passed can always be attacked as 'there's nothing else most important'?? But that only means you don't expect anyone to be able to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time. But this is the slippery slope to the point we are now calling people Jim Crow if they do not embrace homosexuality. That isn't the real issue, the real issue is married gays intentionally come to Kansas (they call themselves freedom fighters and pioneers), with the intention of causing trouble, specifically to provoke and disrupt and shove their way to the front and dare people to disagree, then use their sexuality as a club to legally and literally bash people who don't agree. So now we have a precedent if one state passes a law, every single other state has to recognize it, or else they are Jim Crow. Really this can all be traced to the images that dominate the psyche; the mental image of a sign 'no colored allowed' and you jump however high they want you to jump. And for the millionth time, why does anyone's sexuality need to be everyone's business?




What ever happened to live and let live, instead of everyone trying to force crap down everyone else's throats and force them to approve?

@LoveWins

Kansas Russia. Lol

Phatscotty wrote:Sullivan over reacting and connecting dots that aren't there, as usual. He must have been up against a deadline for his article.

Every bill that is ever passed can always be attacked as 'there's nothing else most important'?? But that only means you don't expect anyone to be able to chew bubble gum and walk at the same time. But this is the slippery slope to the point we are now calling people Jim Crow if they do not embrace homosexuality. That isn't the real issue, the real issue is married gays intentionally come to Kansas (they call themselves freedom fighters and pioneers), with the intention of causing trouble, specifically to provoke and disrupt and shove their way to the front and dare people to disagree, then use their sexuality as a club to legally and literally bash people who don't agree. So now we have a precedent if one state passes a law, every single other state has to recognize it, or else they are Jim Crow. Really this can all be traced to the images that dominate the psyche; the mental image of a sign 'no colored allowed' and you jump however high they want you to jump. And for the millionth time, why does anyone's sexuality need to be everyone's business?




What ever happened to live and let live, instead of everyone trying to force crap down everyone else's throats and force them to approve?

@LoveWins

What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

thegreekdog wrote:What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

They get sued and the judge orders them to make the cake or pay massive fines (aka close down).

Phatscotty wrote:So now we have a precedent if one state passes a law, every single other state has to recognize it, or else they are Jim Crow.

Would you like us to use an analogy that is easier for you to disagree with? I'd hate to set up an unfair debate by defending an individual's rights in the strongest terms possible.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

They get sued and the judge orders them to make the cake or pay massive fines (aka close down).

in other words, they will be forced

A male California high school senior who played on the boys baseball team as a freshman will now play on the girls softball team.

What happens now?

Phatscotty wrote:A male California high school senior who played on the boys baseball team as a freshman will now play on the girls softball team.

What happens now?

She'll get massive accolades and scholarships for being an outstanding softball player.

People get famous playing softball, right?

Federal and state law already protect a Catholic parish from having to perform a gay wedding, even if same-sex marriage were legalized in Kansas, said Thomas Witt of Equality Kansas. Additionally, a business owner can already choose to not serve a gay customer, because sexual orientation is not included in the state’s anti-discrimination statutes, he said.

http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/16/329390 ... rylink=cpy

Apparently it's four months out from the primary election in Kansas (lower house only). In light of the above, I wonder if this was just a red-meat bill to help some Kansan legislators beat-out secular Republicans in the primary by whipping out-of-staters into a frenzy so they'll send cash. Maybe that would explain why Republicans in the upper chamber so quickly defeated it.

Phatscotty wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

They get sued and the judge orders them to make the cake or pay massive fines (aka close down).

in other words, they will be forced

--Andy

thegreekdog wrote: What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

It actually depends on local laws. Federal laws protect employees from discrimination based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation, but the right to refuse service only restricts discrimination against protected classes, which does not currently include sexual orientation.

That aside, the actual implications of this bill are hilariously awful.
Apparently pretty much anything can be a religious entity, and religious entities are free not to recognize any marriage in any way. Meaning a business would be free to tell a widow that they don't need to give them any of their spouse's pension since they are free to arbitrarily decide that marriage doesn't exist.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

They get sued and the judge orders them to make the cake or pay massive fines (aka close down).

Under what basis does the alleged plaintiff bring such a law suit?

/ wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

It actually depends on local laws. Federal laws protect employees from discrimination based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation, but the right to refuse service only restricts discrimination against protected classes, which does not currently include sexual orientation.

Yes, that's where I was going. Thanks for ruining what would have been a nice surprise. Bastard.

Basically, NS and PS - there is no basis for a law suit, so the now failed bill protects against a law suit that cannot and therefore would not exist under current law. If sexual orientation is made a protected class (which a state can do - I think New Jersey has done it), then you have a potential reason for the failed bill. In any case, because sexual orientation would not be a protected class, all this law does is punish anyone who brings a law suit by having to pay attorneys fees and court costs when such a case. Without this law, the case would be dismissed and, in my experience, it is likely that the plaintiff would have had to pay attorneys fees and court costs (i.e. without the law).

It's a stupid bill that made Kansas Republicans in the House look like bigoted idiots and would not have done a single thing had it been passed.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

They get sued and the judge orders them to make the cake or pay massive fines (aka close down).

Why would they even need a judge? Nightstrike has already determined the verdict.

Imagine the money Kansas could save by going with Nightstrike's off the cuff verdicts without a trial.

If he offered his services nation wide for free, America could save billions yearly.

Take that tea partiers.

thegreekdog wrote:

/ wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: What happens right now if a baker refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

It actually depends on local laws. Federal laws protect employees from discrimination based on sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, and sexual orientation, but the right to refuse service only restricts discrimination against protected classes, which does not currently include sexual orientation.

Yes, that's where I was going. Thanks for ruining what would have been a nice surprise. Bastard.

Basically, NS and PS - there is no basis for a law suit, so the now failed bill protects against a law suit that cannot and therefore would not exist under current law. If sexual orientation is made a protected class (which a state can do - I think New Jersey has done it), then you have a potential reason for the failed bill. In any case, because sexual orientation would not be a protected class, all this law does is punish anyone who brings a law suit by having to pay attorneys fees and court costs when such a case. Without this law, the case would be dismissed and, in my experience, it is likely that the plaintiff would have had to pay attorneys fees and court costs (i.e. without the law).

It's a stupid bill that made Kansas Republicans in the House look like bigoted idiots and would not have done a single thing had it been passed.

Update - I have confirmed that sexual orientation is NOT a protected class in Kansas. Just google "is sexual orientation a protected class in Kansas." Therefore, there is no basis for a discrimination law suit in Kansas. Therefore, this bill would have been an ineffective and irrelevant law.

thegreekdog wrote:
Update - I have confirmed that sexual orientation is NOT a protected class in Kansas. Just google "is sexual orientation a protected class in Kansas." Therefore, there is no basis for a discrimination law suit in Kansas. Therefore, this bill would have been an ineffective and irrelevant law.

TGD, you are missing the point. Think of the bill like an advertising campaign -- it is a way to attract like minded folks to the state, which will help GDP and Jobs, which will decrease poor income, which will increase health stats.

Wait, I was just thinking about Democracy 3. Carry on.


--Andy

One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes. Another belief is that there is no difference between the sexes and gender does not matter. That's what it all comes down to. If we say sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter for anything. Boys are going to be playing on girls junior high basketball teams, boys are going to be playing on girls high school hockey teams, men are going to be playing on women college volleyball teams. That's why the issue of marriage was so important. The redefinition dictated to everyone that sex does not matter. The people of Kansas say it does matter.

End of story

Phatscotty wrote:One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes. Another belief is that there is no difference between the sexes and gender does not matter. That's what it all comes down to. If we say sex doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter for anything.

That's logical. Sooner or later we'll be sexing up animals anyways, so what does it matter?


--Andy

Phatscotty wrote:One belief is that there is a difference between the sexes and a purpose for the sexes.

What is the difference between the male sex and the female sex, according to this belief?