TOPEKA — The Kansas House will move forward with a bill that would give government employees the right to refuse service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs.
Republican supporters of House Bill 2453 say the bill concerns religious liberty. Democratic opponents said the bill unfairly targets gay Kansans. The two sides talked circles around each other Thursday at a meeting of the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs.
Read more here:
http://www.kansas.com/...
That in bold may be the understatement of the week. Hard to say year because it's early and in Kansas, who knows what else is coming down the pipe.
Gov. Sam Brownback said that he has yet to read the bill, but called himself a “strong proponent and supporter for religious liberty.”
“Religious liberty issues are ones that I’ve been around for a long time. … I’ve fought for religious liberty in many countries and with many different faiths,” Brownback said. “It’s basic in the Bill of Rights.”
The bill was drafted in reaction to federal court rulings overturning same-sex marriage bans in other states, said Rep. Steve Brunk, R-Wichita, the committee’s chairman. In 2005, Kansas voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
The scope of Brunk’s bill has been hotly debated. The bill goes further than past legislation concerning same-sex marriage because it extends to private businesses as well as government employees.
If the bill becomes law, public and private employees alike could refuse service to same-sex couples based on their religious beliefs concerning marriage. Because religion is a protected status, the employer could not terminate the employee for this refusal. The law would also shield private businesses from discrimination lawsuits.
Somehow, I'm reminded of this:
It's Ok. Legislation that makes it specifically legal to refuse service to a class of people based on any factor has a long standing history in US law of.. what.. being overturned?
Oh, Kansas. At least there were voices of some reason.. despite being outnumbered:
Rep. Emily Perry, D-Mission, voiced her opposition to the bill by quoting the Kansas Bill of Rights.
“All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights,” read Perry. “All men,” she repeated.
It's 2014. And we're still having to lecture this point.
See, someone else, even a Republican gets it:
Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Garden Plaza, invoked the image of the Pilgrims fleeing Europe. Rep. Willie Dove, R-Bonner Springs, said religious freedom was in “jeopardy” and compared the situation to racial discrimination.
Oh wait, no he doesn't. He's equating the inability to discriminate against a group of people with the fight against racism, in what has to be one of the most confusing quotes I've ever read. He supports being intolerant as a way to fight for his rights in the same way that African Americans had to fight for their right to be accepted.
Or something.
I guess.
Or maybe he's arguing that his religion is being oppressed because it is being denied the ability to oppress others?
I don't know. I think my head is spinning. Rum & Coke anyone?