Quantcast

Kansas House Approves Catholic-Backed Bill That Legalizes Anti-Gay Discrimination

☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾ 2012/03/30 01:10:23
You!
Add Photos & Videos

By an overwhelming vote of 89-27, tonight the GOP-dominated Kansas House voted to legalize anti-gay discrimination based on religious objections. The bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Lance Kinzer (R-Olathe), is primarily aimed at the small college town of Lawrence, the one remaining place in the entire state where gays have some legal protections.

TOPEKA — The Kansas House on Wednesday advanced legislation that would allow a religious defense to discriminate against gays.
Two Lawrence representatives attacked the bill, called the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act, as an attempt to destroy a city of Lawrence anti-discrimination ordinance that includes sexual orientation.
In an impassioned speech, state Rep. Barbara Ballard, D-Lawrence, said, “I am very proud of my Lawrence community, and I’m very proud of the ordinance that we passed.” Ballard added, “Discrimination is an injustice. It is an injustice to everyone.”
House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, said, “I don’t believe it is ever right to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.”
injustice house minority leader paul davis d-lawrence discriminate sexual orientation

But State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, defended his bill, saying it was meant to make sure government could not infringe on an individual’s religious beliefs.
“Free exercise of religion is at the core of who we are as a people,” Kinzer said.
Davis asked Kinzer if under Kinzer’s bill an apartment owner could cite his religious beliefs to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple.
“That is generally correct,” Kinzer said.
Davis said that was unfair to the city of Lawrence, which is the only city in Kansas that has an anti-discrimination ordinance designed to protect people based on sexual orientation.

city kansas anti-discrimination ordinance designed protect people based sexual orientation

State Rep. Charlie Roth, R-Salina, said that Kinzer’s legislation was “homophobic” and that it will hurt Kansas’ image. “It sends the message that Kansas is not welcoming. Kansas will become known as the land of the pure as defined by the few,” Roth said.

Man and Horse that Built Civilization

But Kinzer said local units of government should not be allowed to engage in religious discrimination against its citizens.
The bill was approved 89-27. Ballard, Davis and state Rep. Tom Sloan, R-Lawrence, voted against it. State Reps. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, and TerriLois Gregory, R-Baldwin City, voted for it.
The bill would prohibit state and local governments from substantially burdening a person’s religious beliefs unless the government can prove that the burden is advancing a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive way of advancing that interest.

religious beliefs government prove burden advancing compelling government restrictive advancing

The measure is supported by Gov. Sam Brownback’s administration, the Kansas Catholic Conference and Concerned Women for America of Kansas. It was opposed by Lawrence officials, the Kansas Equality Coalition and the state chapter of the National Organization for Women.
Right before advancing the Kansas Preservation of Freedom Act, the House gave preliminary approval to putting a chapel for prayer and meditation in the Statehouse.
Both proposals will require a final vote before going to the Senate. Those votes will probably be taken Thursday.

Mabon

Read More: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/mar/28/house-giv...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Chris- Demon of the PHAET 2012/03/30 23:43:38
    there's no way this survives constitutional review...
    Chris- Demon of the PHAET
    +6
    This legislation is not about freedom of religion. It is about denying homosexuals protection from discrimination.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • JoLost 2014/02/28 19:35:44
    Please tell me this VICIOUS law will be challenged as unconstitutional!!!!!!!...
    JoLost
    Trying to lock out certain US Citizens and residents by claiming "religious ideologies on sexual orientation" in a secular public domain regulated by public laws..... Is selective discrimination and unconstitutional. Lets see if the governor of Kansas follows Jan Brewers lead and vetoes it.
  • bob h. 2012/09/25 02:19:18
    Homosexuality is a Sin it says so in the Bible it also says Dragons Exist and...
    bob h.
    There's nothing here that mentions Catholic backed.
  • Badger 2012/04/04 01:26:23
    there's no way this survives constitutional review...
    Badger
    Plus they obviously do not realize that gays are stereotypically some of the best tenants who improve the rentals value do to there disposable income.

    ;) (being very tongue in cheek)
  • elijahin24 2012/04/03 20:19:17
    there's no way this survives constitutional review...
    elijahin24
    This is blatant, and unapologetic discrimination, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments.
  • ehrhornp 2012/04/01 23:45:23
    Please tell me this VICIOUS law will be challenged as unconstitutional!!!!!!!...
    ehrhornp
    How do these stupid idiotic bills get passed? What idiots these people are. So very Christian of them. Shame so many "Christians" do not follow Jesus' teachings.
  • sjalan 2012/04/01 19:00:20
    there's no way this survives constitutional review...
    sjalan
    I wonder if these blittering idiots bothered to read Romer v Evans SCOTUS

    The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

    Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving "special rights", Kennedy wrote:

    To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

    Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens. Though antidiscrimination laws "enumerated" certain groups that they protected, this merely served to put others on notice (i.e., the enumeration was merely declaratory).

    Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government...







    I wonder if these blittering idiots bothered to read Romer v Evans SCOTUS

    The case was argued on October 10, 1995. On May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado's Amendment 2 was unconstitutional, though on different reasoning than the Colorado courts. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and was joined by John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

    Rejecting the state's argument that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving "special rights", Kennedy wrote:

    To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

    Kennedy argued that protection offered by antidiscrimination laws was not a "special right" because they protected fundamental rights already enjoyed by all other citizens. Though antidiscrimination laws "enumerated" certain groups that they protected, this merely served to put others on notice (i.e., the enumeration was merely declaratory).

    Instead of applying "strict scrutiny" to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:

    Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.

    And:

    [Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.

    Kennedy did not go into depth in rejecting the claims put forward in support of the law (protecting the rights of landlords to evict gay tenants if they found homosexuality morally offensive, etc.) because he held that the law was so unique as to "confound this normal process of judicial review" and "defies...conventional inquiry." This conclusion was supported by his assertion that "It is not within our constitutional tradition to enact laws of this sort." Finding that "laws of the kind now before us raise the inevitable inference that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected," the Court implied that the passage of Amendment 2 was born of a "bare...desire to harm a politically unpopular group".
    (more)
  • Edwin sjalan 2012/04/02 04:06:32
    Edwin
    Blithering idiots rarely bother to read case law. And most of the legislators involved in this bill probably don't care whether it is rejected or not.

    In fact, they may be COUNTING on it being rejected by a "liberal" court -- that anger may be designed to guarantee they get enough votes in November. After all, the base is hardly excited by Romney, so they may not even vote in large numbers... unless they get angry about some issue or such.
  • sjalan Edwin 2012/04/02 07:49:25
    sjalan
    All of which has been backfiring on them for some time now. Besides no decision on that would take place unless someone with standing went directly to the SCOTUS to enforce Romer v Evans on Kansas with a demand for a writ of compliance. In which case SCOTUS could take direct immediate action but that is very doubtful.
  • Mark 2012/04/01 13:05:57
    I Don't Care
    Mark
    Cant the couple just rent a room in a guest house that doesnt have a problem?
    Their house their rules.
  • elijahin24 Mark 2012/04/03 20:21:49
    elijahin24
    Would you feel the same way if this law allowed people to discriminate against Christians or black people?
  • Mark elijahin24 2012/04/03 20:25:41
    Mark
    Why pick black people?
    If they didnt want me in their house because part of my belief system offendedthem or my ethnicity was a problem, I would move on.
    I have experienced such things, personally, in the past.
  • elijahin24 Mark 2012/04/03 20:38:41
  • Mark elijahin24 2012/04/03 20:40:19
    Mark
    Why should I forgive you?
    You have just called me a liar.
  • elijahin24 Mark 2012/04/03 20:44:46
    elijahin24
    Because your savior told you to?
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... elijahin24 2012/04/03 21:33:38
  • Mark elijahin24 2012/04/04 16:56:39
  • elijahin24 Mark 2012/04/04 18:06:22
    elijahin24
    Lemmeaskyathis: If I had made the same claim you made, without knowing me at all, and knowing only that this claim, true or not, would bolster my point; would you believe me? If you would you'd be naive. I don't know you. I don't know if you're an honest person or not. What I do know is that the odds that you've been denied housing because you're white, or because you're Christian, in the United States of America is slim to none. Not impossible, but extremely slim. I'm not calling you a liar because I know you to be dishonest. I'm doubting your claim, because it's pretty far fetched.
    And to be honest, I could honestly give a damn whether you forgive me or not. I was just trying to be less of a dick, than I would have been if I had ACTUALLY just come right out and called you a liar.
  • Mark elijahin24 2012/04/04 18:13:22 (edited)
  • elijahin24 Mark 2012/04/04 18:18:24
    elijahin24
    I said "Would you feel the same way if this law allowed people to discriminate against Christians or black people?"
    You said "I have experienced such things, personally, in the past"
    This seemed pretty clear at the time. Am I missing something?
  • Mark elijahin24 2012/04/04 18:21:01
    Mark
    Yeah, you are missing half your brain. I was talking of discrimination fella. I have wasted enough time with a complete moron.
  • elijahin24 Mark 2012/04/04 19:53:13
    elijahin24
    If THAT wasn't what you were saying, I wouldn't have called you a liar. So I apologize for misunderstanding your unclear statement. ass.
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Mark 2012/04/03 21:32:44
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    Simple Reason we do not Discriminate or allow Discrimination of any kind it leads to hate
    hate leads to things like this
    kkk hanging
    no japs sign no japs sign no japs sign no japs sign
    Hate leads to Violence you wouldnt like it if someone discriminated against you
    so dont disciminate against others
  • Mark ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/04/04 18:15:33
    Mark
    You are the kid discriminating.
    I have never refused people based on their life choices or background. So please dont accuse me of it.
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Mark 2012/04/06 01:54:29
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    i did not accuse you of discriminating against anyone
  • holyheretic 2012/04/01 08:10:40
  • sandra 2012/04/01 08:00:34
    Please tell me this VICIOUS law will be challenged as unconstitutional!!!!!!!...
    sandra
    +1
    This law is a SIN.
    Just more hypocrisy.
  • Rubyking 2012/03/31 23:10:51
    I Don't Care
    Rubyking
    I don't live there, and people will just move
  • elijahin24 Rubyking 2012/04/03 20:22:31
    elijahin24
    Sure, if their family and all of their friends are there, why not just pack up your whole life and move to a less hateful state.
  • Rubyking elijahin24 2012/04/03 21:49:28
    Rubyking
    yup, the friends and family would come with
  • elijahin24 Rubyking 2012/04/03 21:54:58
    elijahin24
    I'm sure they would just pick up THEIR lives, and leave their jobs and friends.
  • Rubyking elijahin24 2012/04/03 21:55:55
    Rubyking
    I think it depends on the person
  • elijahin24 Rubyking 2012/04/03 21:57:08
    elijahin24
    I think this is very unlikely.
  • Rubyking elijahin24 2012/04/03 22:01:13
    Rubyking
    I think that it does not matter whether something is likely or unlikely
  • elijahin24 Rubyking 2012/04/03 22:11:12
    elijahin24
    Or just or unjust.
  • Rubyking elijahin24 2012/04/03 22:20:06
    Rubyking
    Under certain circumstances everyone would leave that state
  • Pablo 2012/03/31 22:25:58
    I Don't Care
    Pablo
    Many states had referendums that voted against homosexual marriages, yet many also OK the civil unions. I have no problem with homosexuals living a certain lifestyle. But why do politicans still pass laws against the general publics vote ? What I don't like is the extreme contradictions, lies, and destruction that the left utilizes in promoting their agenda. Say what you will about me, as I could care less, but at least if you did it would only prove my point, as your poll answers prove.
    Pablo
  • bob h. Pablo 2012/04/01 15:01:29
    bob h.
    The left????
  • Pablo bob h. 2012/04/03 02:39:14
    Pablo
    Do you see Christians destroying churches, putting human feces on paintings of Christ and other religious articles, teaching children about homosexuality when they ought to be learnling about the three R's......
  • ☥☽✪☾DAW... Pablo 2012/04/03 03:35:50
    ☥☽✪☾DAW ☽✪☾
    Actually yes you do
    Christians for Centuries did all you just said to Pagan Temples Destroyed them Defiled them threw feces on them burned down pagan temples

    and Even today Christians have Attacked Pagan temples in America and other places world wide
  • elijahin24 ☥☽✪☾DAW... 2012/04/03 20:23:42
    elijahin24
    You always beat me to these ignorant pricks.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/12/18 00:44:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals