Kansas Legislators Debate Protections for Not Recognizing Gay Marriage

Feb 6, 2014 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

A Kansas House committee is preparing to debate legislation aimed at protecting individuals, groups and businesses that refuse for religious reasons to recognize same-sex unions or provide benefits to gay couples.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of28
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Using religion as a basis to discriminate is religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title II
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce;
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Misunderstanding religion , misundrestanding civic duties and , in conclusion , misunderstanding the very meaning of our duties towards our fellow-beings . When you WANT to find a reason to do wrong any old , obsolete argument that favors an injustice will come in handy . .

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Let's see their arguments in Federal Court.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

What we ought to do is file our lawsuit just before they vote on the bill

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rainbow Kid wrote:
What we ought to do is file our lawsuit just before they vote on the bill
If these bakers and florists have objections to legal weddings then they should stop doing weddings, just as kosher Jews don't sell Christmas Hams.
david traversa

Cordoba, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 6, 2014
 
Rainbow Kid wrote:
What we ought to do is file our lawsuit just before they vote on the bill
RIGHT!

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

Nothing like wasting time on a law that is utterly unconstitutional...

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

I think that the case here with most applicability to what the Kansas legislature is attempting to do is Romer v. Evans (1996),

In Romer v. Evans, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that a state could not constitutionally have a state law, or state constitutional amendment that prevented protected status based upon homosexuality, because it did not pass the rational basis test, under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Kennedy wrote that the amendment imposed a special disability upon homosexuals by forbidding them to seek safeguards "without constraint". He said that Colorado's Amendment 2 that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:

Such state laws and state constitutional amendments specifically "wall off" a group of U.S. citizens as being outside the scope of U..S. Constitutional protections and state constitutional protections, thus denying us the equal protection of the laws which the 14th Amendment guarantees us.

I think that any state or federal law which "walls off" marriage for us, is unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment. And I think that Romer v. Evans is the SCOTUS case most applicable to that.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
I think that the case here with most applicability to what the Kansas legislature is attempting to do is Romer v. Evans (1996),
In Romer v. Evans, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that a state could not constitutionally have a state law, or state constitutional amendment that prevented protected status based upon homosexuality, because it did not pass the rational basis test, under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Justice Kennedy wrote that the amendment imposed a special disability upon homosexuals by forbidding them to seek safeguards "without constraint". He said that Colorado's Amendment 2 that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:
Such state laws and state constitutional amendments specifically "wall off" a group of U.S. citizens as being outside the scope of U..S. Constitutional protections and state constitutional protections, thus denying us the equal protection of the laws which the 14th Amendment guarantees us.
I think that any state or federal law which "walls off" marriage for us, is unconstitutional based on the 14th Amendment. And I think that Romer v. Evans is the SCOTUS case most applicable to that.
If gays are legally imposed a disability; then we should be receiving fat disability checks

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
If gays are legally imposed a disability; then we should be receiving fat disability checks
Disability has nothing to do with it.

Merely by virtue of being Americans, we are entitled to equal protection of the laws as the U.S. Constitution guarantees us.

In Romer v. evans (1996). SCOTUS ruled that a state could not "wall off" a particular group of citizens to specifically exclude them from equality under the law. I submit that state laws limiting marriage only to str8 couples does indeed " wall off" gay and lesbian American citizens from the equal protection of the laws, which is unconstitutional.

Some people justify this by saying that being gay or lesbian goes against the teachings of the bible and\or is not leading a "Christian lifestyle". By that criteria, they would also be allowed to not allow marriages by people who are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, or anyone else that is non-Christian. Obviously, any such laws that did that would be unconstitutional.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Disability has nothing to do with it.
Merely by virtue of being Americans, we are entitled to equal protection of the laws as the U.S. Constitution guarantees us.
In Romer v. evans (1996). SCOTUS ruled that a state could not "wall off" a particular group of citizens to specifically exclude them from equality under the law. I submit that state laws limiting marriage only to str8 couples does indeed " wall off" gay and lesbian American citizens from the equal protection of the laws, which is unconstitutional.
Some people justify this by saying that being gay or lesbian goes against the teachings of the bible and\or is not leading a "Christian lifestyle". By that criteria, they would also be allowed to not allow marriages by people who are Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, atheist, or anyone else that is non-Christian. Obviously, any such laws that did that would be unconstitutional.
I think Rainbow Kid brings up a good point. It's something I've been wanting to through in the faces of certain anti gays who insist being gay is a mental or genetic defect.

To me one law that really does come into play here is Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

"....prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation."

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_...

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 6, 2014
 
OMG
eeek
'throw' not 'through'

my bad

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I think Rainbow Kid brings up a good point. It's something I've been wanting to through in the faces of certain anti gays who insist being gay is a mental or genetic defect.
To me one law that really does come into play here is Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
"....prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, or national origin in certain places of public accommodation, such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II when there is reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II. The Department can obtain injunctive, but not monetary, relief in such cases. Individuals can also file suit to enforce their rights under Title II and other federal and state statutes may also provide remedies for discrimination in places of public accommodation."
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_...
The 1964 Civil Rights Act doe snot apply AT ALL, because the act specifies on what basis one cannot discriminate. For instance, it does not specify height nor weight, nor color of hat one is wearing, so one COULD discriminate against someone one by saying they are too short, or too thin, or are wearing a blue hat. For exactly the same reason, since sexual orientation, actual or perceived, is not specified in the act, it is perfectly permissible to discriminate against someone on that basis. I think you guys really should study some law,, specifically U.S. Constitutional law, because you're obviously clueless about it.

DNF

“A seat at the family table”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1964 Civil Rights Act doe snot apply AT ALL, because the act specifies on what basis one cannot discriminate. For instance, it does not specify height nor weight, nor color of hat one is wearing, so one COULD discriminate against someone one by saying they are too short, or too thin, or are wearing a blue hat. For exactly the same reason, since sexual orientation, actual or perceived, is not specified in the act, it is perfectly permissible to discriminate against someone on that basis. I think you guys really should study some law,, specifically U.S. Constitutional law, because you're obviously clueless about it.
my bad.

I was simply trying to point out that using religion as a basis to justify discrimination didn't work.

But then I can find the right to vote in a few parts of the Constitution.

Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

4

4

2

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>my bad.
I was simply trying to point out that using religion as a basis to justify discrimination didn't work.
But then I can find the right to vote in a few parts of the Constitution.
Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
You have NO KNOWLEDGE, NOR UNDERSTANDING of the U.S. Constitution. There is NO "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution. Even the ACLU and gay liberal Democratic Representative Pocan says ther eis no right to vote in the U.S. constitution. You seem to be the ONLY person who mistakenly believes that there is.

As late as the year 2000, SCOTUS SAID there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. Since you continually disbelieve me, despite al the evidence to the contrary, wy don't you simply contact the ACLU, or SCOTUS, or rep. Pocan, or some other liberal group, and ASK THEM ???

But then again, even if you did, I know you would disbelieve them. You're apparently a "FLAT-EARTHER".(And even the ancients knew that the Earth was a sphere).
Sir Andrew

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There is not a single part of that bill that will stand up in federal court. There are so many grounds on which to challenge it that it could keep an entire law firm busy for the next several years. Though I doubt it will ever get to that point. They may be stupid enough to pass this inane piece of legislation, but no judge who made it through the first year of law school would ever rule in its favour.

But it's fun to watch Dorothy's state spin it wheels trying to find new ways to hurt gays. What maroons.

Since: Jan 08

Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 6, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Awwww, the poor little bigots need a law so they can continue to discriminate. I almost feel sorry for them...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Feb 7, 2014
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
You have NO KNOWLEDGE, NOR UNDERSTANDING of the U.S. Constitution. There is NO "right to vote" in the U.S. Constitution. Even the ACLU and gay liberal Democratic Representative Pocan says ther eis no right to vote in the U.S. constitution. You seem to be the ONLY person who mistakenly believes that there is.
As late as the year 2000, SCOTUS SAID there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. Since you continually disbelieve me, despite al the evidence to the contrary, wy don't you simply contact the ACLU, or SCOTUS, or rep. Pocan, or some other liberal group, and ASK THEM ???
But then again, even if you did, I know you would disbelieve them. You're apparently a "FLAT-EARTHER".(And even the ancients knew that the Earth was a sphere).
Except that's NOT what the SCOTUS actually said, is it.

They said there is no right of the people to vote for ELECTORS for the president; it's up to the state to decide how electors are chosen.

That's much different than saying there is no right to vote at all.

Maybe one day you'll understand the difference, but I doubt it because you've shown yourself to be a complete moron when it comes to constitutional rights.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Feb 7, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

As for the proposed Kansas law, it will never stand constitutional review.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Feb 7, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sir Andrew wrote:
There is not a single part of that bill that will stand up in federal court. There are so many grounds on which to challenge it that it could keep an entire law firm busy for the next several years. Though I doubt it will ever get to that point. They may be stupid enough to pass this inane piece of legislation, but no judge who made it through the first year of law school would ever rule in its favour.
But it's fun to watch Dorothy's state spin it wheels trying to find new ways to hurt gays. What maroons.
I can just picture the homophobes, clicking their heels together and saying, "I wish it would pass. I wish it would pass".

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of28
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••