Kansas Gay Marriage Foes to Seek Prot...

Kansas Gay Marriage Foes to Seek Protections Again

There are 11 comments on the EDGE story from Jul 7, 2014, titled Kansas Gay Marriage Foes to Seek Protections Again. In it, EDGE reports that:

Kansas legislators will face renewed pressure next year to provide additional legal protections to those who want to avoid accommodating same-sex couples for religious reasons in the wake of federal courts nationwide invalidating state gay marriage bans.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#1 Jul 7, 2014
One wonders when bigots will realize that thier struggle to keep gays second class citizens is useless. One day gay marriage and civil rights will be the law of the land.
Sigh

Beverly, MA

#2 Jul 7, 2014
Bigots just will not change and they take a long time to die. Unfortunately they have far too much time on this Earth to breed and create new little bigots.

Racism is still alive and thriving, it is just very subversive. Unfortunately, even after Marriage Equality is the law in all states, there will be an undercurrent of bigots that will find ways to subversively discriminate against homosexuals.

Just a pessimist venting here.
Gremlin

Louisville, KY

#3 Jul 7, 2014
Sigh wrote:
Bigots just will not change and they take a long time to die. Unfortunately they have far too much time on this Earth to breed and create new little bigots.
Racism is still alive and thriving, it is just very subversive. Unfortunately, even after Marriage Equality is the law in all states, there will be an undercurrent of bigots that will find ways to subversively discriminate against homosexuals.
Just a pessimist venting here.
You are 100% right.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#4 Jul 7, 2014
In no way does providing a service to someone with differing belief infringe upon religious freedom.

These laws are not about protecting religious freedom, but rather allowing businesses to project their religious moral views, or their interpretation of their religion onto customers.
Dr Reker s Bellhop

Philadelphia, PA

#5 Jul 7, 2014
Gremlin wrote:
<quoted text>You are 100% right.
You must be new not to know to type, "Spot on!", where applicable.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#6 Jul 7, 2014
"for those who want to avoid accommodating same-sex couples for religious reasons....."

WTF is wrong with people? What GOOD is their religion if it allows them to be horrible people?

Amazing.

Since: Oct 10

San Francisco

#8 Jul 7, 2014
Dr Reker s Bellhop wrote:
<quoted text>
You must be new not to know to type, "Spot on!", where applicable.
Spot on, indeed. Well said. Thanks for sharing!
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9 Jul 8, 2014
lides wrote:
1. In no way does providing a service to someone with differing belief infringe upon religious freedom.
2. These laws are not about protecting religious freedom,
1. It is clear that many people disagree with you.
2. Yes, they are. Closely held companies have been defined by the supreme court as people with religious rights.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#10 Jul 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. It is clear that many people disagree with you.
It is also clear that some, like yourself, disagree without being able to offer a valid argument in support of their position. I am well aware that you disagree, Wondering. I am equally aware that you are too dumb to offer a valid and factually supported argument in support of your position, just as you are too stupid to offer a compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional.
Wondering wrote:
2. Yes, they are. Closely held companies have been defined by the supreme court as people with religious rights.
The choice to do so is an irrational one, and the decision will not be without fallout. Tell me, stupid person, if you work for me, do I get to impose my religious beliefs on you? If I, as an employer were an anti-vaccine type, could I reasonably deny you access to vaccinations? Should I be able to make choices about how you spend your check, or your dietary habits, because they are not in line with my religious beliefs?

It's a pandora's box, Wondering, and only an idiot would defend this extremely poor decision.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#11 Jul 9, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. It is also clear that some, like yourself, disagree without being able to offer a valid argument in support of their position. I am well aware that you disagree, Wondering. I am equally aware that you are too dumb to offer a valid and factually supported argument in support of your position, just as you are too stupid to offer a compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional.
<quoted text>
2. The choice to do so is an irrational one, and the decision will not be without fallout.
3. Tell me, stupid person, if you work for me,
1. How many times must I tell you that I don't care if gays marry each other? You're dumber than a rock.
2. Yes, everyone including the supreme court justices are irrational, except for you.
3. I would never work for you, you would be more likely to work for me.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#12 Jul 9, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. How many times must I tell you that I don't care if gays marry each other? You're dumber than a rock.
Wondering, you regularly make this claim, but your posts clearly indicate to the contrary. If you didn't care, you wouldn't consistently seek out my posts, and respond to them.
Wondering wrote:
2. Yes, everyone including the supreme court justices are irrational, except for you.
Wondering, it was an idiotic decision, and the assertion that corporations are people is equally stupid.
Wondering wrote:
3. I would never work for you, you would be more likely to work for me.
No, Wondering, I work for a more intelligent class of people. I sincerely doubt that you employ anyone at all. I employ freelance employees as needed, all of whom are more intelligent than you. Then again, that isn't saying very much.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay rights is personal for Fla. candidates 4 hr Holy Guacamole 4
News Movies: LGBT Film Series to be shown at three L... 5 hr Holy Guacamole 10
News Trump bans transgender people from military 6 hr TomInElPaso 360
News Gov. Abbott suggests 'bathroom bill' is likely ... 12 hr Red Crosse 7
News Celebrate with Allentown's Pride in the Park Fe... Sun Xavier 2
News Do you find this sign offensive? Sun Out of Potty Expe... 9
News Patrick's Cabaret settles antigay discriminatio... Sun Rev Cash Dollar 13
More from around the web