When passed, the new law will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations – movie theaters, restaurants – can turn away gay couples at the door.
And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees. As I’ve noted before, anti-gay businesses might as well put out signs alerting gay people that their business isn’t welcome.

yes, this is happening in 21st century America.  legalized discrimination against a group of Americans, because....God hates fags?  i'm not gay, yet this has me hopping mad.  fucking motherfuckers don't even have the decency to be honest about what they're doing:

State Rep. Charles Macheers (R), one of the leading proponents of the bill, said the proposal would “prevent discrimination” and would put Kansas “on the right side of history.”


the right side of history?  the man is either a lying sack of shit or his brain is made up pudding.  

i'm having a hard time fathoming just how incredibly backwards this legislation is.  i can't believe that religion gets this much deference in allowing blatant, LEGALIZED discrimination.  if your religion requires you to discriminate against Americans for no other reason than you think your imaginary deity agrees with your bigotry you're not a religion - you're a hate group, and you should be treated as such.  

personally, i think that any lawmaker affiliated with this bill should be sent to prison, or at least removed from office.  

Views: 700

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It'd be great if you were right, Matthew.  I'm a bit more of a pessimist, though, and I can't help but think we've only seen the leading edge of this "death rattle."

Snowed in today, and was reading H.L. Mencken On Religion. A compilation of articles and writings from the 1920's. Mencken opined that the Scopes Trial could have been the death knell for evangelical fundamentalism in 1925; with the caveat it could still rear its ugly head in the future. Here it is 89 years later, and we are still fighting this virulent disease. 

Just like how we're still having to fight to keep abortion legal 41 years after Roe v. Wade.  

good points by all.  I vacillate between optimism and pessimism, depending on the day and the issue.  I must have been feeling positive today, for some reason. 

Whackamole is a good description.

I agree with booklover that it's instructive that Brewer appears to have vetoed the bill because of economics rather than because of any particular desire to protect the civil rights of gay citizens. It think it's a good example of the ongoing civil war in the Conservative camp between corporatists and business interests on one side and theocrats on the other.

The former see my civil liberties and protections as important because they contribute to the bottom line, not because I have the inherent right to them that straight citizens do. The latter see themselves as doing Gods work, and their God is not a fan of the Constitution or of any law not "Bible based".

Kakumei, I was repeating what Jon Stewart said on his show, but I absolutely agree with that.  I think it's a moral outrage that she vetoed it for economic reasons only, and not because it was the right thing to do.  I wouldn't go to Arizona if someone paid me.

She saw dollars leaving her state was what she saw.  I've never known of a govenor being so rude as to shake their finger in any world leaders face.  Much less the president of the united states.  I just iwsh she had ,or would, do that to Kim Jung Un.  He excecuted his uncle.  Maybe he would fry Jan.  lol

That picture on the airport tarmac still irritates the daylights out of me.  Apparently Brewer thinks she's all that and a bag of chips and Obama was just one more uppity n*****.

Personally, had she tried that with me, she would have found her finger bent back.  I don't take crap like that from anyone.

Hey, I'd forgotten about that incident and that Brewer was the disrespectful person. 

Par for the course.  It's quite interesting how those little subconscious actions create a wide open window into the real persona of a person.     

I had forgotten that also Carl.  Now I like her even less, lol.

thinks shes all that and a bag of chips..... I never heard that before. I like that.


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon




© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service