Aa
Kansas House passes bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples
(CNN) -- Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state.
The politics
The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.
"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.
"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."
Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.
Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.
Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.
"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity," he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.
The details
HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.
It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."
Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.
There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.
If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.
It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.
The trend
The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.
Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.
Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/index.html
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state's Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.
Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.
They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples -- or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.
This includes employees of the state.
The politics
The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.
"Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law," state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.
"HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans."
Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.
Republicans dominate the state's Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.
Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.
"Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity," he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.
The details
HB 2453 is titled "An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage" and covers many bases.
It reads, in part: "No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
"Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement."
Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can't face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side's legal fees.
There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.
If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.
It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.
The trend
The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.
Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.
Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/13/us/kansas-bill-same-sex-services/index.html
I hope I’m not coming across like I am defending what they are trying to do in Kansas. I always am interested when The Spirit of The Law conflicts with the Letter of the Law. I agree that it will probably be probably be struck down but I think it is going to be an interesting battle.
"Then I realized that Kansas does not recognize Same Sex Marriage which would make the Amendment moot."
The state is not at liberty to define or classify people or associations in such a way as to circumvent the equal protection afforded under the 14th Amendment. The direct result of the bill is that human beings may be deprived of their rights by virtue of someone's "sincere belief" that they are involved in a same-sex relationship. That strikes me as flat out wrong and not able to withstand judicial scrutiny. Time will tell but I'm willing to wager that it is struck down.
The state is not at liberty to define or classify people or associations in such a way as to circumvent the equal protection afforded under the 14th Amendment. The direct result of the bill is that human beings may be deprived of their rights by virtue of someone's "sincere belief" that they are involved in a same-sex relationship. That strikes me as flat out wrong and not able to withstand judicial scrutiny. Time will tell but I'm willing to wager that it is struck down.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while and still haven’t been able to get a grasp on it.
I thought it was “cut and dry” when I first read your post “Amendment XIV
Section 1.”
At first I thought this would suffice for State Level but not for the private sector. Then I realized that Kansas does not recognize Same Sex Marriage which would make the Amendment moot. Just because the Federal Government recognizes Same Sex Marriage doesn’t mean the States do (like the Marijuana Laws). I’m not trying to be argumentive, I just don’t think it is as “cut and dry” as I first thought.
I thought it was “cut and dry” when I first read your post “Amendment XIV
Section 1.”
At first I thought this would suffice for State Level but not for the private sector. Then I realized that Kansas does not recognize Same Sex Marriage which would make the Amendment moot. Just because the Federal Government recognizes Same Sex Marriage doesn’t mean the States do (like the Marijuana Laws). I’m not trying to be argumentive, I just don’t think it is as “cut and dry” as I first thought.
Thanks, this produces some questions but I've got to run. I'll ask them later.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I’m not agreeing with them, but from what I’ve read this Bill doesn’t have to be passed to refuse service to Same Sex Couples,
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
This information is 7 years old and it may have been Amended since then but from what I’ve read The Federal Civil Rights Act does not mention Same Sex Couples. If someone has some updated information please post it.
The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service
This information is 7 years old and it may have been Amended since then but from what I’ve read The Federal Civil Rights Act does not mention Same Sex Couples. If someone has some updated information please post it.
Business owners have the right to refuse service to people, but not based on color, sexual orientation..etc.
Gee, I agree with some of your post: "...it is clear no matter religious beliefs that it is discrimination and will be over turned by courts...."
This part I really don't understand at all: "Yes they have the right to refuse service if they so wish but not discrimate(sic) against."
This part I really don't understand at all: "Yes they have the right to refuse service if they so wish but not discrimate(sic) against."
To deny making a cake to a same sex couple is the same as denying making a cake for a black couple, it is clear no matter religious beliefs that it is discrimination and will be over turned by courts.
I do think religious bodies should not be forced to do anything against there beliefs, but not business. Yes they have the right to refuse service if they so wish but not discrimate against.
I do think religious bodies should not be forced to do anything against there beliefs, but not business. Yes they have the right to refuse service if they so wish but not discrimate against.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
