Kansas to allow businesses to elect not to serve gay couples

[KCMax]

The Kansas House passed HB 2453, which would allow businesses to refuse to serve gay married couples if it violates their religious beliefs. Government workers would also be allowed to discriminate against gay married couples.

Kansas House passes bill allowing service refusal to gay couples

“Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” he said. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.”

Oh, the irony.

How House members voted.

Slate: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill Is an Abomination

It gets worse. The law’s advocates claim that it applies only to gay couples—but there’s no clear limiting principle in the text of the bill that would keep it from applying to gay individuals as well. A catch-all clause allows businesses and bureaucrats to discriminate against gay people so long as this discrimination is somehow “related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.” (Emphases mine.) This subtle loophole is really just a blank check to discriminate...

Isn't this patently unconstitutional in the face of the Windsor decision by SCOTUS?

[heatherkay]

Well, I imagine we'll find that out pretty quickly. I be very surprised if someone didn't actively do something to try to force it into the courts. As all those "defense of marriage" amendments start falling, lots of other state legislatures will be looking for this sort of ad hoc solution.

[AllThingsKC]

Don't businesses already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

No shoes, no shirt, no service, right?

[KCMax]

Don't businesses already have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason?

No shoes, no shirt, no service, right?

Not exactly. They cannot refuse to serve black people. Or handicapped people.

[AllThingsKC]

Not exactly. They cannot refuse to serve black people. Or handicapped people.

Even if they're not wearing shoes or a shirt?

[KCMax]

Not exactly. They cannot refuse to serve black people. Or handicapped people.

Even if they're not wearing shoes or a shirt?

I think it depends on their pants.

But yes, someone can refuse service to a black person for not wearing a shirt, but not for just being black. Accordingly, a business can refuse to serve a gay couple for not wearing shirts, but under Windsor, I'm not sure they can refuse service just because they are gay. At least under Kansas law (if this bill passes), it would be legal to refuse them service simply for being gay.

[kcjak]

This legislation sickens me. Discriminating against ANYONE is simply wrong and to do it in the name of religious liberty is what we're sending americans overseas to fight and die to prevent. If this passes the Senate, why would I EVER choose to spend any money on the Kansas side when my own tax dollars could be used to discriminate against me?

One Republican said (using the protection of religious liberty defense) that the legislation is OK because it would also allow a lesbian to deny service to a catholic. So by that logic, a muslim can refuse to provide service to a Jew? Or a Christian can refuse service to someone wearing wool pants with a polyester shirt?

If my partner and I go to visit my parents in Wichita and get in a car wreck on the turnpike, can a state trooper refuse to call an ambulance?

If the KS legislature is so worried about same sex marriage being overturned, this isn't the proper way to handle it.

[heatherkay]

The KS legislators say that the Muslim/Jew thing or similar would NOT be allowed because religion and race are Federally protected categories, whereas sexual orientation is not.

I'm kinda OK with businesses not having to provide service to anyone that they don't want to provide service to. I am NOT OK with government employees or anyone who receives government funds. While I'm at it, anyone who receives federal tax exemptions as well.

[AllThingsKC]

How would businesses know someone is gay? I guess in this particular case, we're talking about gay couples, which makes it a little more obvious. But still, how would a business know they're gay and not just close friends or something?

How would a business know what a person's religion is for that matter?

[heatherkay]

Well, the businesses they've been talking about have been wedding photographers and cake bakers, so the two-groom cake topper would make it pretty obvious. But you're right -- when it starts to lap over to things like whether or not someone can rent an apartment, it gets a little trickier.

[chrizow]

i doubt it will get this far, but this bill almost seems like a stealth effort by progressives to tee up the issue of whether sexual orientation should be a protected class for the SCOTUS to decide.

[KCMax]

One Republican said (using the protection of religious liberty defense) that the legislation is OK because it would also allow a lesbian to deny service to a catholic. So by that logic, a muslim can refuse to provide service to a Jew? Or a Christian can refuse service to someone wearing wool pants with a polyester shirt?
.

This bill, as I've seen it, is pretty narrowly written to apply only against gay married couples.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any
of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:

(a) Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement;
(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or
(c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/hb2453/

Its pretty much been established that anyone (except a religious institution) cannot refuse service against someone because of religion.

[chaglang]

I saw that there is a provision that, if a person discriminated against unsuccessfully sues because of the discrimination, they must pay all the legal fees of the defendant. Is that common?

[heatherkay]

I think it's pretty common to have to pay the winner's legal fees if you bring suit.

[brewcrew1000]

I almost want this law to pass because I want to see some horrible, horrible backlash from this god awful state and teach these politicians a lesson.

It will most likely never happen but it would be funny if some of the KU, K State and Wichita State basketball players refused to play, Sporting KC or opponents refuses to take the field on Kansas Soil, NASCAR drivers refusing to race at KS speedway, Musicians cancelling gigs in Wichita, and Lawrence, Cessna and Beechcraft pulling out of Wichita.

[FangKC]

At its' base, this bill is just mean-spirited.

Using religious objections to openly discriminate against a class of people is just cover for "I'm uncomfortable, so I'm going to invoke religion to justify my actions."

[earthling]

At it's base, this bill is just mean-spirited.

Using religious objections to openly discriminate against a class of people is just cover for "I'm uncomfortable, so I'm going to invoke religion to justify my actions."

This message needs to get across to KS House. On so many layers they make KS look stuck in dark ages. Even if it doesn't pass, the message is already out there that KS is dominated by extremists and has opened the invitation to attract more.

KS senate doesn't expect it to pass but severe damage already done, in addition to yet another evolution challenge proposed.
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/13/48 ... gious.html

[chaglang]

What's especially depressing to me is the fact that a lot of the extremist bills aren't coming from reps in some dusty corner of the state. They're coming from, or have the backing of, the reps in the KC metro. I hardly think of places like Olathe and Shawnee as fringe-right strongholds, but if you judge them on their elected representation, they are.

[grovester]

Those places aren't full of extremists, but the GOP in those areas are.

[auntbigdog]

Putting aside for a moment the bill's basic hatefulness, I wonder how these legislators--most of whom probably claim they're pro-business--think this is going to attract new industry or innovation to the state.

I've been selling KC hard to a San Diego friend as a great place to launch her startup, but her worry is that if she wants to hire smart young workers, they'll want things like marriage equality and reproductive rights. I can only flog Google Fiber, affordable housing, and great culture so much--bigoted legislation like this makes it impossible to defend Kansas, and I think the taint drifts over the state line.