I totally agree with you, but I have to say that this is a tad out of place on a diplomacy forum.

I have no problem with this bill and personally I don't know why a homosexual would want service from a homophobe anyway.

Personally I believe that just like we have the right to not buy a good or service for any reason, businesses should have the right to deny service for any reason.

The bill isn't as homophobic as leople are thinking.

Also I want to remind people that you ca vote with your feet. If any of you are from Kansas and you disapprove of the law then move ti a less homophobic state.

"I totally agree with you, but I have to say that this is a tad out of place on a diplomacy forum."

You're new her, aren't you?

;)

Yep, joined Tuesday...well, hi, Harm0ni, I'm Obi, or as I'm known around these parts, "That fucking asshole who quotes Shakespeare, is a liberal piece of shit and never shuts the fuck up!"

This is how the WebDiplomacy Forums work, Harm0ni:

OUTRAGE!
Oh, get the fuck over it!
Wanna debate about God?
I hate Obama!
I hate John Boehner!
Wanna debate about God?
MEME!
COUNTER-MEME!
OH MY GOD STOP WITH ALL THE MEMES!
Where did that meme even come from?
Bob Ghengiskhan!
Fuck krellin!
Fuck Obi!
Fuck Putin!
Fuck Draugnar!
Fuck the Mods!
YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT KANSAS!
THEY EAT PEOPLE THERE!
Hey, wanna debate about God?

Welcome to the site! :p

"You're new her, aren't you?"

*here (because new here or no, typos on the Internet should be old hat for ya!) :p

"I have no problem with this bill and personally I don't know why a homosexual would want service from a homophobe anyway."

Because it's medical service...you wouldn't want a good doctor or nurse to deny you treatment because they hate your face, would you? It's discrimination.

What's more, if I needed open heart surgery and the best heart surgeon in the country is a Jew-hating Iranian...I'd still want him to treat me, so long as I could be sure he wouldn't kill me while I was on the table. Who cares if he hates me? I should just be another patient to him and he just a doctor to me...if he saves my life, even if he hates me, it's a positive moral thing all around...he's saved a life and added to the prestige of his practice with another successful operation, and I get to live.

...We can debate how great a service to the world that is, letting me live, but still. :p

"Personally I believe that just like we have the right to not buy a good or service for any reason, businesses should have the right to deny service for any reason."

...We had a thing...it was called the Civil Rights Act...

Wherein we said that was no longer OK (at least to a certain extent and in certain cases, let's not split hairs, you know to what I refer.)

What's more, medical services aren't the same as, say, food service--

You NEED medical assistance.

You could always vote with your feet (as you say) and choose to eat at another establishment...but medical attention is a necessity, and you shouldn't be turned away from a quality medical establishment on the basis of your religion--

Again, that's discrimination, plain and simple, and it could be life-threatening discrimination in some cases.

Businesses should be allowed to discriminate, but essential services shouldn't. If a so called Christian group doesn't want to serve the LGBTQ community, then they should have to give up their medical licensing, be it a hospital or a doctor. But I don't think you'd find many hospitals refusing care on the basis of orientation. The obvious (but too broad) intent of this bill was to slow them to discriminate against their own employees. And Putin is all for that. After all, if they don't like it at their job, they should quit and join the welfare state. That's the essence of what he said in the union thread.

"...We had a thing...it was called the Civil Rights Act..."

That doesn't apply to private businesses nor to the LGBTQ community as has been pointed out, they aren't protected under the amendment.

Obi I highly recommend you read the law in question, the law doesn't permit medical facilities to deny LGBT, only religious institutions and private individuals.

Medical facilities don't have the right to refuse service at all, regardless of the circumstances and they are protected there with other laws (both federal and state).

Before making outrageous claims about a law, you might want to make sure the law actually does what you think it does.

Based on the wording of the law this is more of a reaction to the repeal of DOMA, then anything else, as most of the law is about the treatment of couples in a civil union or married in another state.

Read the bill. It basically starts by allowing all government employees/agencies to refuse services based on "deeply held religious beliefs", ends with definitions and a nice little sentiment that the government can't discriminate against agencies that DO provide services to those refused by other agencies, and you have a gem right in the middle that says if someone refuses a service to someone via invoking this bill, they can find someone else to provide the service as long as it's not too hard on the person/agency to do so. This law is legalizing "separate but equal" on a pretty significant level for gay vs. straight couples. I would hope and expect the courts to rule this unconstitutional.

I only read the first page, not the rest. But still, if Kansas wants this law, they should be free to have it.

"That doesn't apply to private businesses nor to the LGBTQ community as has been pointed out, they aren't protected under the amendment."

I was just saying that refusing services based on something like race or religion was something dealt with in Civil Rights Act and Act-inspired legislation...

It's because of that Act and those that followed that questions about your religious affiliation and sexual orientation are no longer kosher on job applications.

this isn't refusing service based on race or religion though obi, this is refusing service based on sexual orientation

What "sincerely held religious belief" is going to inform a doctor to let a patient die? Ever hear of the story of the Good Samaritan? Perhaps if Obi was less of a religious bigot himself he would understand what this legislation is about.

The very concept of christian "salvation" is that God provides a service to someone in sin...think about that. So I wholly and absoutely reject this Libtard hysterical rant that suddenly all the homosexuals are going to be starving on the street and dying of festering, untreated wounds. get the fuck overself, Obi.

Obi the narrow-minded religious bigot strikes again. All for equality, all for cultural diversity...well...no....not really...

What he is all for is compulsion to act against ones will, which in any normal discussion would be called SLAVERY.

"This law is legalizing "separate but equal" on a pretty significant level for gay vs. straight couples."

Except that doesn't apply to LGBTQ people. They aren't a protected class. Period. I wish it weren't so, but Federal law says they aren't.

Good to know, Obi. Thanks.

Harm0ni - just to enlighten us, are you a rational thinking, self-reliant guy who views each person as an individual, or are you a crazy nutjob Libtard?

"doesn't apply to LGBTQ people. They aren't a protected class. Period. I wish it weren't so, "

Curious, Draug, do you:
1. ...think that "religious belief" is protected / religious people are a protected class?
2. ...wish they were / were not?

Can someone actually argue the merits of such a law rather than just how it may not be unconstitutional at the moment? What's the good in letting someone who works for the government be allowed to refuse to serve someone that doesn't hold their beliefs? The lawmakers who passed this claim that this fights discrimination against those that don't want to help people that don't believe and act the way they do. That's completely backwards...

"The lawmakers who passed this claim that this fights discrimination against those that don't want to help people"

Phrased another way, it prevents the government from compelling people to act against their religous beliefs, and thus violating their personal principles and ethics.

We once lived in a land of freedom where individuals were allowed to act or NOT act out their beliefs up until the point that they violated another's freedoms....you freaky Libtards now want to transform our society to one where you have no freedom to not act against your beliefs, where the demands of every individual supercede your own individual rights. no matter how perverse the demand.

Wow, priceless krellin. Let me continue what you quoted me on and just happened to leave off the most important part:

"The lawmakers who passed this claim that this fights discrimination against those (in government) that don't want to help people THAT DON'T BELIEVE AND ACT THE WAY THEY DO"

I don't want someone in the government who hates Jews and believes they are the devil reincarnate to have any legal resource to deny me a government service based solely off my beliefs. This law would allow that.

@krell _ I agree there is an apparent conflict there. I do believe freedom of religion is important and I actually have no problem with private business choosing to serve who they wish. My problem is with government passing laws allowing government to discriminate. So no actual conflict as government is of by and for the people, not a private business and gays are people.

"What's the good in letting someone who works for the government be allowed to refuse to serve someone that doesn't hold their beliefs?"

The law doesn't allow that.

Furthermore, allowing random arbitrary beliefs undermine the principles of equality before the law is profoundly anti democratic. If folks want that, move to Iran. At minimum these people should be fired from government service

Or maybe it does... Hmmm. Now I have a serious problem witht he law. If you work in government, you work for the tax payers. LAst I checked, gays were tax payers.

The law absolutely allows that, and it gives a bullshit stipulation that if you do invoke the law to refuse a service because of a conflict with your deeply held religious belief, you must point the person/couple to someone else that will provide the service "if it's not too much trouble". I couldn't make this up.

....adn therein lies the *real* problem: The Government providing services. If the fucking government got out of the job of being your damned Nanny, then the free market would resolve these issues: the business that blatantly discriminated would go out of business.

Once again, Libtardism -- government must give me everything I need -- is the root of the problem.

But changing this into an issue of just "Government shouldn't provide services at all" is a complete cop-out to the issue at hand krellin, and you fucking know it.

Seriously -- what "government service" is being provided that conflicts with a religious belief. I'm not sure, for example, what being homosexual would have to do with processing my property tax bill, for example. I'm not sure what someone being homosexual would have to do with, or even be known, when someone is asking the cops to write a report about the burglary of their home, or when the government is, say, negotiating a treaty on behalf of that state and the local indian tribe, or...

Someone tell me where religion is going to *reasonably* come in to play, without being hysterically hyperbolic.

And the notion of someone saying, "You are gay, I can't provide you ANY form of ANY service" is not a reasonable example as I have not *ever* met anyone that is so obtuse.