Krellin, you're missing the point. The government service has absolutely nothing to do with the religious belief. Will a bible-thumping gay-hating government employee that helps process property tax bills use this law as recourse to choose to prioritize processing the bills of heterosexual couples over homosexual couples? Maybe. And if not, as you claim, what's the point of the law? The law's vagueness as to when it can be invoked implies that they expect it to be invoked for all sorts of bullshit things.

y2k - you are an idiot, and you are being *exactly* the hyperbolic, fanatical libtard I expect to see on an issue like this. Please explain to me:
1. How a Christian uses his beliefs to not process a tax bill - if you can link Christianity to property taxes and homosexuality, you apparently have discovered new scripture
2. How a Christian would *know* that the tax bill belonged to a homosexual

The assertion, "Christian hate homosexuality" and therefore "Christians will do NO business with a homosexual" is fucking retarded to the extreme.

Chrisitian, in theory, hate ALL sin. Further, Christians, in theory, believe that ALL humans are sinners. Therefore, Christians can do no business with ANYONE, Christian or not. Duhhhhhhh.....

Therefore, it is logical to assume that 99.99999% of Chrsitians will not be as ridiculous as you.

So where MIGHT this apply...if someone wants to have a **reasonable** discussion...

1. Forcing a Christian to perform a marriage ceremony against his beliefs....for example, forcing him to marry kissing cousins.
2. Forcing a Christian to perform an abortion, which in his/her mind is murder.
3. Forcing a photographer to participate in a homosexual wedding, which is against his beliefs.

All of these services can be provided by someone else without any difficulty.

None of these *reasonable* exclusions are services the government should be providing anyway.

When are Christians forced to participate in a gay marriage or an abortion? Again, you're talking about services that these people would never be involved with at all in the first place. When considering the part of the bill that accounts for government employees/agencies invoking the law, rather than the first part that references private individuals and institutions, that's the scary part, and I claim fake Christians that are really just bigots will use this law as a means of espousing their hate and bigotry in their job with impunity and simultaneously making life more difficult for people that don't align with their beliefs. You think I'm an idiot for even thinking people would do that. Well, the law is in the books now, so we'll see in time.

y2k. an example would be in New Mexico where a court forced a Christian photographer to take pictures at a gay wedding against his religion.

Oh....OK....so I am taking about services they would never be involved in. OK....so again I ask:

"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..."

It seems you are making my point for me, y2k...the government should not be providing services that would conflict with a belief anyway, so all this feigned outrage is just nonsense...

As I demonstrated above, Christian that refuse service based upon someone's "sin" must refuse service to all human beings. The only other objection a Christian would have is being forced to participate in teh sin...i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc...which, as you point out, are not "governemnt services". (To which I will correct you: Government - the old justice of the peace - do provide marriage services, for example).

Anyway, thanks for playing...

I don't see what all the outrage is. In fact, there should have been public outcry for this to get passed. After all, I don't see why same-sex couples should be allowed to demand that people "service" them contrary to their beliefs. Isn't there this whole sexual consent thing that's been going around for a while, or was this some sort of loophole they needed to close?

So let's suppose I own a gas station in Kansas.

A couple turn up running on fumes and want gas. I think they are going to the drive to the local lover's lane and engage in unnatural sex. Can I deny them gas.

A little while another couple turn up with silver crosses on chains hanging from their necks. Can I deny them gas.

I think we can all agree that the next couple who turn up in burkas shouldn't even be driving cars.

The above couples turn out to be two brothers, a mother and daughter and two sisters. Do I have to see the engage in sex before I can deny the services, and do I need to video it so i can prove how depraved they are?

I'd want to read up on this law before I took a position. Is it giving blanket permission to deny a range of services to individuals, or is it aimed at situations like that Christian wedding photographer who was taken to court because she didn't want to work as a photographer at a gay wedding? There's a huge difference between the two cases.

And yes, free exercise of religion is protected by the Constitution.

It's going to get revoked once they realise that Christianity isn't the only religion again. Remember when they were pushing for religious beliefs to be taught in schools?

But Mujus do civil rights trump religious expression? That's the just of the debate, with Kansas arguing no and same-sex couples arguing yes.

Neither trumps the other -- the standard for conflicting rights is clear - you have rights up until they impinge on someone else's rights. Free Speech is free....up until your free speech harms someone else.

This is not a new concept (conflicting rights) and the standard is clear - you can not impose your rights on someone else to cause them harm. Never before has this meant that your rights can *force someone to act*...so forcing someone to act against their religious beliefs would be a whole new standard...and another step towards TYRANNY...

So should a restaurant be allowed to post a big "No gay couples allowed" or "No Muslims allowed" sign outside their entrance? Should the DMV be allowed to say "Jews can only receive driver's license and car registration services from 9-10am at our headquarters when we have someone on staff that is willing to assist"? Why is it so crazy to think that a law like this one would result in things like these popping up? Does this law really protect religious freedoms, or is that just how to swing it as positive? I'm still not convinced that people are actually suffering from a breach of their religious freedom without this law. Weren't there people in the 50s that claimed their religious liberties would be jeopardized if they were forced to serve Black people along with White people with whatever service they or their business provided?

You are not talking about individual rights being impinged upon -- you are taling about groups having rights denied -- it is a totally different subject, and truly not relevant to the discussion of this law.

You are saying that, em masse, we are goign to deny a certain groups rights/access/etc. Totally ludicrous.

The purpose of the law if to say that ONE individual can not be compelled to act against his beliefs...that has nothing with the mass denial of rights to a group, no matter how hard you try to twist and pervert the discussion.

Nowhere in this law does it say that the DMV, as a whole, will do xyz in relation to an individuals belief. It says Employee X (who might work at the DMV) is excused from doing xyz IF it conflicts with his religious beliefs.


.....leading us, tiringly, back to the original question: What government service at the DMV is going to conflict with my someone's religious beliefs? And no, it doesn't mean the Christian can deny the homosexual a driver's license, because there is no logical religious argument there, and the first Christian to try to deny a drivers license to a homosexual will be hauled into court so fast....and lose...it will make his head spin.

You know this is true, despite your shrill hysterical cries.

What I'm saying is that this law that claims to protect the religious freedoms of people by ambiguously saying they can protest performing a service that goes against their beliefs is going to translate into people that offer a service to claim that offering that service to specific people is against their religious liberties. Please point me to where in the law there is any language that attempts to distinguish the two.

"And no, it doesn't mean the Christian can deny the homosexual a driver's license, because there is no logical religious argument there, and the first Christian to try to deny a drivers license to a homosexual will be hauled into court so fast....and lose...it will make his head spin."

I hope you're right on that. I really do.

y2k - as I said/asked - what is the connection between Christian beliefs and Driver's License that "homosexual" would come in to play AT ALL?? The driver's license has nothing to do with the person's sexuality,and does not engage the DMV employee in any behavior that has anything to do with "homosexuality" - so if the denial is because they are a homosexual, I would ask what homosexual-related behavior did the Chrstian engage in while giving a drivers license to someon who happened to be gay. "None" they woudl say, "but he/she is a sinner"...and I would say, "EVERY DMV client is a sinner...do you deny ALL persons a driver's license as a Christian?"....Christian thinks, say, "No...only the gays" and then I'd fire his ass.

And I'm concerned that this law would give the employee the legal authority to sue you for rightfully firing him.

I hope you're right, as I said before, that my concern is unwarranted.

"And I'm concerned that this law would give the employee the legal authority to sue you for rightfully firing him. "

And that is why I laid out the "legal" argument one would use to crush the idiotic DMV Christian employee.

So what happens if the prejudiced "employee" happens to be the CEO of Comcast and refuses to allow his company to provide internet to homosexuals?

krellin, stop acting so gay. It's offensive.

@2WL - Comcast is a private company and has every right to discriminate if they choose.

Well this law definitely corroborates that.

2WL – then I would suggest that you stop sending Comcast picture of your ASA…anal sex adventures…and then they won’t know that you are in fact a homosexual (or exploring the option, anyway).

As a side note, for any of your moronic Libtards that are celebrating the first gay NFL player about to be drafted. He’s NOT the first gay NFL player….not by a long shot…he’s just the only one that thinks he needs special treatment because of where he sticks his dick in the privacy of his home. It’s sad that modern Libtardism is causing more division and classification, and eroding privacy, instead of celebrating the so-many-more things we are unified about and keeping private life private. <sigh> Hope he’s a great football player…and don’t give a shit one way or the other what he does. But I know for certain now that he more interested in an agenda than he is being drafted for his abilities, and if I were a coach, I steer far away from him not because he’s gay, but because he thinks it’s the most important aspect of his being for us to know. I would want football players who’s first self-characterization is how bad ass a football player they are…not how bad they can work their ass…

y2kjbk: I really want to help this country – I really do. But seeing so many people defend a law like this makes it hard to think the effort worthwhile. How do you change the minds of so many narrow-minded folks?

JECE - that's because you don't undestand the law, and you don't understand what freedom means.

Freedom doesn't mean everyone is happy all the time, and it doesn't mean everyone gets what they want. But I'd rather be unhappy sometimes, free to pursue happiness all the time, then forced into the grey mold of authoritarian uniformity where everyone is equally miserable.