In case you haven’t heard, the Kansas House has just passed House Bill 2453 which says that anyone may refuse service to someone whose religious beliefs don’t line up with their own. Sickeningly, the authors and supporters of the bill are calling it the "religious freedom act." In theory, this bill means that anyone could refuse service to anyone else for any sort of "religious" reason, but the real goal of this law is to allow bigots who are against gay marriage to refuse service to legally married gay couples. And this isn’t just for business owners. If this bill becomes law, any employee working in any private business or government capacity may discriminate against a gay person or couple if it “offends their religious sensibilities” and the employer can’t even fire an employee for such behavior, because in Kansas, religion is a legally protected class but sexual orientation is not. (I'm not sure how this lines up with Kansas being a right to work state, but what the hell do I know? I'm no lawyer.)
I have been struggling with writing about this. It’s so demoralizing, so horribly sad, that I just don’t even know what to say. Usually I try to be a little snarky in this blog, but … This isn’t funny. Not on any level. I’m at a total loss.
I will say this:
Wake up, Kansas.
The days of automatically voting for the candidate with an “R” after his or her name are over. Kansas has a long, proud tradition of voting for moderate Republicans, but it’s time to start doing our homework.
The speculation over exactly what the ramifications of this bill might be are already being debated. It's not just about an employee who doesn't want to make a wedding cake for two women getting married. A police officer could refuse to intervene in a domestic dispute between a gay couple. Thomas Witt, Executive Director of the Kansas Equality Coalition warns:
Under HB2453, county clerks won`t have to issue you a marriage license. Under HB2453, companies won`t have to offer you the same spousal benefits they offer other married couples. Under HB2453, hospitals can pretend you`re not the next-of-kin to your dying spouse. Under HB2453, your boss can deny you bereavement leave to bury the above-mentioned spouse. Under HB2453, it`s not just individuals who get to pretend you`re not married. It`s entire agencies of the state government. It`s whole for-profit companies. It`s any man, woman, child, stray dog, and random breeze that gets to pretend you`re not really married. All they have to say is ``God told me so.``
Not only is this law disgusting, but if it’s enacted, there’s no way that it can possibly legally stand. Which means that your tax dollars will go toward fighting a total waste of time.
This law has been proposed and endorsed by people who think of themselves as Christians. But I ask you, would Jesus have refused to wash a gay man’s feet? Would Jesus have refused to give bread and fishes to a lesbian couple and their children in need? Just where in the Bible is that passage?
House Bill 2453 still has to go to the senate. It’s not too late to contact your senator and tell them to stop this piece of legalized bigotry. If you don't know who your senator is, don't be embarrassed. You can search for your representatives at OpenKansas.org
There's a Change.org petition in protest of the bill here.
And if you're into Facebook, a group called Stop Kansas House Bill 2453 has been growing by the second. You can go to it by clicking the link.
This law would never have had to be introduced if gay couples would be respectful of business owners religious beliefs. At least two businesses in this country had to close because they refused to make a wedding cake or take pictures for gay weddings because of their beliefs. Those couples could have just gone to another business and been done with it. But the gay agenda has no tolerance for the beliefs of others, which makes them just as intolerant as they claim the other side is, and want to cram their lifestyle down society's collective throat. In this case they are reaping what they have sown.
ReplyDeleteTheresa Hall, I ask that you re-read your post aloud, but instead of the word "gay", substitute one of the following: "Jewish", "Christian", "Muslim", "Black", "Bi-racial", "Elderly".... Does it still make as much sense? All throughout history, people have found reasons to give less to and think less of others. Sadly, they often use religion as a basis for their argument. The Bible is subject to interpretation. SLAVERY is strongly supported in some biblical interpretations, and people used the Bible to keep it legal for far too long. I hope that you will agree with me that this is wrong. One thing that I do believe to be true throughout the Bible is that Jesus Christ taught tolerance, compassion, acceptance, and love of thy neighbor. Turning someone away and denying them public or private services based on the topography of their family is just plain wrong. It always has been, though it has looked different in the past. It always will be wrong, Theresa. This time in history will someday be viewed just as the Jim Crow laws are viewed today. I truly wish that you would think about what your statements mean to those that they are about, and ask yourself if Jesus would agree with you. Every day, more people are doing the same, and the world is growing more compassionate. Despite this set-back in Kansas, the country is progressing. I hope that you will join us on the right side of history.
ReplyDeleteOk -- so what if you're openly a Hitler-loving, Jew murdering Nazi and you want my services? Do I have the right to refuse to serve you an ice cream? Or what if you're openly a racist bigot and member of the KKK? Should I have the right to ask you to leave my place of business? Or what if you are Fred Phelps from Westboro Baptist carrying your nasty, hateful signs around? Can I refuse to make a cake for him??? (I certainly would.) If I can choose not to serve any of these people, then I should be able to choose not to serve ANYONE for ANY REASON. I really hate the way that the Kansas legislature has gone about it, but the point is that LGBT community has no more right to sue anyone about not being served than I DO for not being served or that anyone else does. Yet they sue. If I am a business owner trying to sell my goods or services for a profit, it doesn't really serve my interests to turn down business of any kind. However, we do have the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason without fear of being sued by them. The religious basis for the argument is TRULY NOT NECESSARY. Until laws are passed at the state and federal level redefining marriage, there is only so much you can do with regard to policies that affect marriage or marital status (licenses, next of kin, insurance, food stamps, etc.) However, I do encourage lawsuits against governmental agencies that discriminate based on orientation, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. when the particular issue should be based on EQUALITY. Private business and government/state/public are separate spheres, thankfully. We don't want to give up our personal freedom, because if one side give it up, all sides lose. I don't like the Phelps mentality or their methods, but they have the right to be assholes in America. I also have the right not to sell them a cake.
ReplyDeleteWe are strong because we are different not because we are the same. We are wealthy because we have always strived for more, not less.
ReplyDeleteSigned- Tony, boring white guy, married (wife), kids, who wants to really be over the whole civil rights issue already, please.
PS- Do you really think Jesus, who sat with lepers and fed the homeless, would say that because you are in love with another human, are kind, a good neighbor, would refuse wine and food to them? Honestly?
This is America. America is a litigious society. We are sue happy. We may not like that about ourselves, but it’s true. Any business has the right to refuse service to anyone, without passing a new law. The person who has been refused service then has the right to sue if they wish. These cases are determined on a case-by-case basis and it’s tricky. Courts have sometimes ruled that a business was justified in refusing service to say, a biker gang that could have caused trouble, and courts have ruled against businesses that have discriminated against people for religious reasons or sexual orientation.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s particularly troubling about this law is that it takes any of the power out of the hands of the business owner. If you own a business and one of your employees decides to discriminate against one of your customers, you can’t fire that employee. Really? That’s clearly putting the religious beliefs of one person above the rights of a gay person. That’s not what this country is about.
Yes, Amber. Good point.
DeleteJen Frank, being gay is not an ethnic or religious issue. It is a lifestyle issue and that does not constitute a civil right. And as for Jesus, he did all those things except acceptance of sin. As a matter he fact he told the adulteress to go and sin no more. Jesus doesn't leave us in our sins, he delivered us from them by dying on a cross. And while we will always struggle with our sinful nature we are not to wallow in it. Jesus also says that if we truly love him we will obey his commands and one of those commands is to stay away from sexual impurity which includes not only homosexuality but anything outside of marriage such adultery and pre-marital sex. You can't pick and choose what you want from Jesus' teaching to validate your views.
DeleteTheresa: you can call being gay a "lifestyle issue" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that your way of thinking is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. I have many gay friends, one of whom I grew up with, and I can tell you from my heart that they are not making a choice. Being gay is who they are. And their relationships are no less real, no less important that my marriage. They are no less parents to their children as I am to mine.
DeleteReligion should not even be apart of this debate because not all people are religious or uphold any of these values anymore. Let people live the way they want, life is too short to be prosecuted for your true happiness.
ReplyDeleteTheresa, for the sake of argument, sex is not the issue at hand. This bill is about people that are making a monogamous and life-long commitment to one another. Yes, marriage. I personally feel a little embarrasssd for the people like yourself who continually bring up fornication. These people aren't saying, "Hey, can we have gay sex in your flower shop?", they are saying, "We are in love and want to be married. Will you sell us flowers?" The federal government deems it unconstitutional to deny these marriages. It's time that the squeemish get their minds out of the gutter and view people for their character, not how they "do it".
ReplyDelete