On Tuesday 11th, the state of Kansas passed by 72 to 49 in the house, a disgusting bill that will effectively create segregation between heterosexuals and those who identify as LGBT. It is still to pass the senate I believe, but given the ease in which it passed the house, it is likely to come into effect.

Below are excerpts from a blog that outlines the new law I'll post the link at the end for anyone who wants to read it in full.






Now for my thoughts on this.

Charles Macheers proclaiming that they're moving the bill to the senate because 'discrimination is horrible,' is frankly laughable, given that this bill is carte blanche to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. Additionally, given that Kansas is hardly a beacon of secularism, it seems to me that they're essentially saying that gay people have no right to take part in common society, with a legal ability for them to be denied the rights to any form of service, without any recourse.

It's ridiculous that a gay couple can be turned away from a hospital for example, and I'm not sure how this laughable law would work in practice, when it comes to emergency situations. Without being overly melodramatic, it reads to me that they could let a gay couple die, based on their 'religious liberty,' and there'd be no recourse for the families, who even by suing, would automatically have to pay the attorney fees of the defendants!

A similar law has also been tabled in Oregon, and in Idaho there is a bill that doesn't go as far, but seeks to protect businesses and allow them to refuse to serve gay couples.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...omination.html

I'm shocked. This is truly horrific, sounds more like Saudi than the US. I swear the world is going backwards.

Let's hope the Hollywood elite start making a fuss about this. People like George Clooney should stop thinking about the Elgin Marbles and start concentrating on things happening closer to home.

I found it quite shocking too, at first I thought it was a bit of a parody..

......

I assume that the Supreme Court may take a view on this...

**** you i a
n gay

time to **** Kansas

I hope so too.


?

Looks like commonsense has prevailed and the senate have put the blockers on this: http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/14/328...-marriage.html

You would be better off reading the bill rather than a scaremongering blog. It is not a carte blanche to discriminate against gay people, it is a carte blanche against gay marriage, domestic partnership, civil union. That is no one has to provide services for the celebration of the union and no one has to recognize the union or provide services related to the union like accommodation or counselling or adoption, etc..

The bill states.

I should think so too, disgusting was proposed in the first place

What if someone just says they believe it's related to any of those things, regardless of whether it is or not?

Also, the senate have put the blockers on this, because they don't believe it's constitutional to deny service based on sexuality.

That might be what they intended when they passed it and that's abhorrent enough as it is.

However, having now actually read the bill it's incredibly badly drafted. Essentially the wording of the bill allows anyone to withhold any services which they consider relate to people in any kind of relationship of which they disapprove. If a fireman or paramedic is called out to the home of a gay couple they could conceivably refuse to help to put out the fire or assist the person who is unwell because it would be providing services to them. They could even refuse to help the child of a gay couple.

And it's not just a 'scaremongering blog' that believes this will be the case but the Kansas Bar Association, people who know a fair bit about laws and how they operate.

Could you give an example?
I mean the bill appears to enable people to refuse to provide services or rights directly related to gay marriage. So everything from refusing to hold the reception or provide hotel accommodation to the couple to refusing employee rights that would normally be given to a married couple.


Which is similar to the ruling by the UK courts in the case of the B&B owners who refused to give a booked room to a same sex couple due to the B&B owners religious beliefs. "Sexual orientation is a core component of a person's identity which requires fulfilment through relationships with others of the same orientation." Claiming to not discriminating against gay people just gay relationships makes no sense, as what defines someone's sexual orientation is who they have relationships with.

It also gave government employees rights to refuse, from the DMV, to your police officer.

Here's an example for you, I get stabbed walking down the street in Kansas in say a homophobic attack, and walk into a hospital, and Mr doctor uses his religious liberty to refuse to treat me.

I don't see how the doctor is providing a service directly related to gay marriage. If you died and he notified parents or siblings not your gay spouse that would be an example. Likewise if you were unable to respond and the doctor required permission from next of kin to do a procedure they could choose to not ask the gay spouse, but instead your parents or siblings.

But the bill gave all government employees the right to refuse service based on religious liberty, that's where badly drafted piece of legislation get caught out, because clearly there was a lot more scope for discrimination, which actually, I think was intended..

Read what the senate said about the bill, in regards to government employees.

By helping someone in a gay marriage they are potentially facilitating that relationship. If I get stabbed, head into a hospital and then head off back to my husband when fixed then I will indulge in more 'sin.' The doctor facilitated that by healing me and for some religious people it's enough to bring them into a state of sin also. Thus they have an arguable case under the bill as drafted to be excused from treating any gay person.

The bill "protected" the "religious freedom" of an employee to refuse services related to gay marriage but also contained a obligation for the service to still be provided.

And what if there's a 20 minute wait for another paramedic or fire engine to turn up or if the only ER doctor on hand won't treat someone in a gay marriage? What happens if there isn't another employee to step in? What does 'promptly' mean and how on earth is it in any way reasonable to force a gay person to wait while someone is found who isn't going to discriminate.

And what does undue hardship mean and will employers essentially be able to use that final part of this section to undermine everything that comes before?

I disagree with you interpretation of services related to gay marriage as including paramedic, fire engines, ER doctor. I also disagree that a 20 minute delay is promptly providing the service. In my opinion the blog quoted in the opening post was scaremongering it bares no resemblance to the wording of the bill or its obvious intent. The issue is however moot as it looks like the bill will not pass the senate anyway. So we will thankfully never know how it would have been applied in real life.

The senate president disagrees with your interpretation:

Which is a different interpretation to those who drafted the bill and the bills proponents. In the event it still went ahead it would go through the Judiciary Committee where it's wording would be clarified with the intent of preventing misinterpretation. But, hopefully it will just be dropped as even as intended it is not a pleasant piece of legislation.

The problem with the law, apart from the fact that it has been proposed in the first place, is that it's so poorly written it's not at all clear what it's intent is. It doesn't define what type of services do relate to a same sex relationship nor does it say that those services must relate directly to those relationships, an indirect link could be enough. Prompt isn't defined and nor is undue hardship leaving a huge amount of uncertainty.

As I said before it is conceivable that a doctor, paramedic or fireman could argue that by helping a gay couple they facilitate their 'sin' and thus bring themselves into a state of sin also and they should therefore be excused from assisting gay couples. It is at least arguable that the law as written could be interpreted as allowing this argument to succeed. The Kansas state senate and Kansas bar association apparently agree.

Presumably gay couples will be exempted from paying tax in Kansas too. If the state decides to treat them unequally, then they should not be expected to equally bear the responsibility of funding the state