Here's one for the "absolutely disgusting" file. The Kansas House passed a bill that would allow blatant and unapologetic discrimination against gays -- ostensibly against gay couples, but because the bill's language is so ambiguous, even someone who is tangentially connected to gay couples can be discriminated against. Doctors would be able to refuse to treat you, if their religious convictions cause them to be against gay marriage. Cops would be allowed to refuse to help you. The welfare office could refuse to work with you.

Worse, if any person so discriminated against tries to sue, they will not only lose, but they will be required to pay the defendant's attorney costs!

And some people complain when gays liken their struggle for equal rights to that of African-Americans. Wake up, folks. This legislation is straight out of the Jim Crow era.

While I realize that not everyone here is a proponent of gay rights, I think most, if not all, would draw the line when cops are allowed to refuse to help you because they're against gay marriage. Even if you're in a straight marriage, but happen to have a gay child in a relationship, the cops would be able to say no.

And it breezed right through the House, no problem!

But don't worry. This story does have a happy ending.

Sort of.

See next post.

While the demise of this bill doesn't qualify for a happy ending, or even a gay ending. It might work as "marginally acceptable ending."

The Kansas Senate, although it would have gleefully passed this bill, and governor Jim Brownback would have, without a doubt, signed it into law, nixed it.

Not because they realized, "No! Public servants and doctors cannot abandon American citizens to life-threatening situations merely out of religious convictions! Such a thing would be abhorrent!"

But because they got the idea that had this bill become law, the Republican Party would never again see a vote from anyone under the age of 40.

Kind of leaves you choked up with emotion, doesn't it? Hey, disgust is an emotion.

Glad to see you finally oppose the action of an authority figure or governmental entity.

Now, if you could only do that for others, on issues that do not affect you personally, you might finally demonstrate good citizenship.

There are maybe two counties in Kansas where the sane people are in charge.

And they're in a fight for survival.

Rad-iculous writes: Glad to see you finally oppose the action of an authority figure or governmental entity.

Since the Kansas senate nixed the bill, oh, clueless one, what would I have to oppose? Did you imagine that I want doctors, police and firefighters to be allowed to refuse anyone, even remotely connected with gay marriage?

The authority has spoken, and said "NO!" to this bill. The right thing done for the wrong reason, but still the right thing.

So, where did you get this dumb idea that I opposed this?

On the contrary, I'm very much pro-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may. Had the Kansas Senate let this bill pass, the rest of the Republican Party throughout the country would either vigorously denounce this piece of legislation or go the way of the Whig party.

Kansas would think they were hit by the worst cyclone since the one that dropped Dorothy's house in the land of Oz.

And those who are so horribly offended by any comparison of the gay rights movement to African-American civil rights movement would see so many parallels, their heads would spin. (Feebie, for instance -- though I suspect she was instigated behind-the-scenes by Crid -- once launched into a screeching hissy fit merely over the suggestion that the right to marry alluded to in Loving v. Virginia might also be applied to gay marriage.)

We might even see a new Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

So, no, I would not have opposed Kansas's decision to bring this segregationist bill to pass. (They can do it, after all.) Actually, I dare them to do it.

Yep. All about you, dear.

And now, you're so mad you don't even recognize that the original bill was your objection.

How badly does life in Kansas suck?

So badly that one of their Republican Senators, Pat Roberts, won't live there.

Whatever, Radso (What was it that Crid called you? Sillyman Rad?) ... I personally view this horrible piece of legislation as a victory for the gay rights movement either way. Knock it down, it would have been defeated the bill, which, of course, is a good thing.

Let it pass, and it would serve a much greater purpose.

But, I did not object to this bill passing. I called it appalling, which it is. But there's no disputing, as the second link showed you, its passage would have served a good purpose for the gay rights.

Though I don't anticipate it being the death knell of the Republican party, even if it did pass. I frankly doubt they would be so stupid as to not voice their vehement objections to this bill.

If the Kansas Senate can recognize the danger, surely the much more savvy Republicans can also see it, too.

By the way, Gog, not to dismiss your commentary in favor of the intellectually-challenged Radwaste, but I did get a kick out of your link concerning the invisible Pat Roberts, the Kansas Senator that has barely been seen at all at his own home.

(On) The Disposability of Boys:

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/cc-the-disposability-of-boys/

Ugh. Michelle, that's terrible. At the very least, Pope Francis is doing something about one venue of exploitation.

It's the most cogent and comprehensive piece I've read on the matter.

It's humbling enough to walk through downtown Pittsburgh (or any US city) and know that the bodies of men are in the buildings, the bodies of men who fell into vats of molten metal.

I read this article and don't know where one could begin to move on this knowledge of what is happening in the present.

I wish he had expanded on the connection between how castigating gay men contributes to stigmatizing boys who have been raped. I have met men who are upset at the idea that they are now gay because of what someone else has done to them. In the aftermath of abuse it is challenging enough to untangle and set right the body/ mind connection without an added identity crisis. That said, I'm glad he put it out there.

And on a lighter note:

Bunny stampede!

On the contrary, I'm very much pro-let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may. Had the Kansas Senate let this bill pass, the rest of the Republican Party throughout the country would either vigorously denounce this piece of legislation or go the way of the Whig party. -- Patrick at February 17, 2014 11:01 AM

So somehow passing a law that would give Christians, and Jews, their religious rights and possibly destroy the Republican National Party is perfectly fine.

But somehow the demand that you have insurances via the [un]Affordable Care Act, done by the Democratic party is perfectly acceptable? It is no infringement on anyone's rights -- correct?

When you can be consistent on your view of rights, liberties, and responsibilities please get back to me.

And then there's this.

Gog - adorable!

Mpetrie - I would not bring children to a Pride parade unless I was prepared to discuss things I would rather not discuss with children - but then I was surprised at this week's American Apparell advert on the back of a free city paper.

Toronto and Montreal were risqué compared to my rural-suburban and comparatively sheltered US upbringing - sex clubs publicly advertised, university halls thick with pot smoke - so I can see how full public nudity during a Pride parade would not be much of a stretch, especially in warm weather when the people up north seem to be jubilant about warmth and sunshine.

Jim P. So somehow passing a law that would give Christians, and Jews, their religious rights...

So, you consider refusing to provide services for gay people, that they pay for with their tax dollars, is a "religious right"?

"Yes, sir. I realize that the home that you share with your same-sex spouse has been burglarized, and that your same-sex spouse is now unconscious and bleeding profusely. But unfortunately, all the police and paramedics I have on call think that same-sex marriage is icky, and have refused to come to your aid. Sorry."

So, you think that is a religious right? I don't. I think your "religious right," if you find that providing services for certain people is so objectionable to you, is for you to take up another line of work.

If you wish to be a cop, but are absolutely appalled by the idea of perhaps "serving and protecting" a gay couple, and that you think it is fine, right and proper to abandon such people even to life-threatening situations, I think you need to reconsider. Gays pay taxes, too. They are therefore as entitled to as much protection by the public servants as anyone else.

When you can be consistent on your view of rights, liberties, and responsibilities, please get back to me.

As for it being the death-knell of the Republican Party, I sort of doubt it. I refuse to believe that the entire Republican Party is so stupid that they wouldn't realize that giving support to this bill (either directly or implied by their silence) would alienate a huge percentage of their voters.

But let's suggest that you're right, and Republicans really are that stupid -- although I can't help but feel you have a very low opinion of Republicans. I would consider such a thing to be natural selection on a political level. If they're that dumb, they should be removed.

And I also don't think the entire Republican base is that mean. I'd venture to say that some, if not most Republicans, even those who don't like gays, would draw the line and not providing them services that all citizens are entitled to.

Damn! It didn't work! ☹ Patrick, I was hoping your head would explode like you see in a cartoon.

I think the law went way too far in what it did. But I also think that generally private vendors (wedding cakes, photographers, non-essentials) should have a right not to serve gays, or blacks, or any other prejudice. But they have no right to deny anyone's free speech when the other side puts up a sign that Jane's Bakery is anti-gay, or website or a newspaper ad.

I do disagree with the concept that public services such as fire, police, or emergency medical care can't and shouldn't be turned away based on your orientation any more than race.

But this comes back to the same argument between health insurance and health care. You can have as much insurance as you want, but you can't force anyone to care for you. About the only thing you can make someone do is die.

Regarding the wedding cakes and photographers, certain states, such as California, treat homosexuals as a protected class. Businesses in those states have no more right to refuse homosexuals than they do to refuse to serve blacks.

Businesses in those states have no more right to refuse homosexuals than they do to refuse to serve blacks. -- Patrick at February 19, 2014 4:51 AM

And where do equal rights cross over into special rights?

When you hear about any group asking for a change in the law, is it because they want equal rights or special ones. I have no issue with a couple of guys going to the court house and getting a marriage certificate. Just like with a heterosexual couple. Then they can go find anyone from a notary public on up to sign it. But if they want to do a church wedding -- it is entirely up to the church (individually or collectively as an order) whether to perform the ceremony. Using the government to force a view is wrong.

If the government is saying I have to do something I consider as a principle is wrong then all that leads to is more bigotry.

Where if I'm the baker losing business because I won't do gay wedding cakes I have a choice of principle or economics. It is not done by a direct outside force.

"But, I did not object to this bill passing. I called it appalling, which it is."

See how confused you are? Any reasonable person would object to a bill they found "appalling". In places, your posts reflect this.

Now, if you want to act like a stereotypical silly woman, and claim different motives at each stage of your posting, well, there's lots of evidence of that. The very first time on this blog you acted all butt-hurt, it was because you didn't recognize that if you posted a reference, you would be associated with its finding. You then went on at length about how you would simply not say whether you agreed with the reference, and it was everyone else's fault that they could not make the distinction.

Still, there's no evidence of good citizenship on your part – merely personal interest. Yep – all about you.

Should I call you, "Patty", or act like an adult? Umm, I'll go for being an adult.

You raise a valid point, Jim P. But I'm not sure that the "protected class" status compels churches to perform weddings. Perhaps it does, but I haven't heard this yet.

But there's no easy answer. If a straight couple wants to get married in a church, would they have trouble finding a church to do it? Would a gay couple have as easy a time?

I started to read Rad-iculous's post, but I stopped once he got to the sexist remarks. He must truly have nothing but contempt for women. It really is very odd how he and lujlp think they know my opinions better than I do. I had a similar discussion on this topic on my own Facebook wall. When someone objected that it was wrong to force a bakery to prepare a cake for a gay wedding if they didn't agree with it. Then another friend of mine, a lawyer, happened to point out that in California, homosexuals are a protected class. As such, they have no more right to refuse a gay couple than they would a black couple.

I didn't feel the need to go all Rad-iculous on him and say, "And you agree with this!"

I honestly don't know if he agrees with this or not. I didn't ask him. And I don't really care if he agrees or not. But I did think that point was worth bringing over here, because when we raised the discussion on this blog, that point was not made.

Do I agree with it? I don't know. I'd like to hear the the pros and cons discussed before I make up my mind.

Do I agree with it? I don't know. I'd like to hear the the pros and cons discussed before I make up my mind.,/i> -- Patrick at February 19, 2014 6:38 PM

* -- I'm not going to bother with links to the cases, etc, just because there would be so many. Do your own actual research before responding to the post.

The problem prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that the improperly decided Dred Scott and the Jim Crow laws were a government sanctioned inequality.

So now we move forward a number of tears. DOMA was bad law based off gender instead of race. SCOTUS effectively gutted it, finally. This is essenatially the same decision made in Loving.

But there is always going to be a legal v. moral opinion. Prior to the CR1964 it was a legally sanctioned and required discrimination.

Now the gay movement was never really legally sanctioned for an extended paeriod, outsid of DOMA.

But you have to now deal with a moral principle compared to a legal principle.And that is something you need to separate. The government can give equal opportunity. But forcing a religious oriented person to server you and your agenda is wrong.

And I do have to agree with Rad. Unless it effects your "rights: you want to deny them to anyone else. The Bill of Rights are a compact that if one applies, the rest of apply as well.

The Bill of Rights are a compact that if one applies, the rest of apply as well.

Who says? The Bill of Rights are ten separate amendments. It's quite possible to do away with one without doing away with the other nine. It's idealistic thinking, nothing more, to suggest that we have to take all of them or none of them.

It might, perhaps, be a laudable principle, but it's certainly not binding. There's no Amendment that dictates that all ten amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights must be taken as a unit.

Yes, I'm aware that they were all written by James Madison, Father of the Constitution, and they were all ratified at the same time, but so what? They're still ten amendments and there's no law that grants them special status.

In fact, the Bill of Rights was originally twelve amendments, but two of them were not ratified by a sufficient number of states. So, the U.S. obviously never believed that we had to accept all of them or none of them. (Though one of them eventually became accepted as the 27th Amendment, the other remains in limbo.)

Now, before you go off the deep end and accuse me of being against the Bill of Rights, I said no such thing. I'm saying that while you may believe that they "a compact that if one applies, the rest apply as well," there is no such law that makes is so. One can be repealed as readily as another with no effect upon the remaining nine. That's the law, idealistic views notwithstanding.

I'm not sure what you agree with that Rad-iculous was saying. The sentence prior to the one I quoted in your last post is incomprehensible.

Unless it effects your "rights: you want to deny them to anyone else.

Uh, what?

The problem prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that the improperly decided Dred Scott and the Jim Crow laws were a government sanctioned inequality.

Dred Scott was not "improperly decided." Don't misunderstand. It was certainly wrong, and a gross injustice, but based upon the standards the Court had, it was quite properly decided.

The Court reasoned that African-Americans were never intended to be considered part of the people by the Founding Fathers. Which is true. The person who wrote "We hold these truths be self-evident that all men are created equal..." owned as many as 141 slaves.

Somewhat inconsistent of him, wouldn't you say? Owning slaves while holding that "all men are created equal..."

His hypocrisy gets even worse. In his draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson included the following (which was voted out by the Continental Congress):

(King George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

So, I do agree that the Dred Scott decision was disgusting and morally wrong, it most certainly was not "improperly decided." Based on what SCOTUS had to go on, it was very much in keeping with the intent of the framers. A decision can be perfectly logical and still be morally wrong.

Who says? The Bill of Rights are ten separate amendments. It's quite possible to do away with one without doing away with the other nine. It's idealistic thinking, nothing more, to suggest that we have to take all of them or none of them. -- Patrick at February 20, 2014 2:41 AM

I can see your point. But at the same time interpretation should, and needs, to be consistent.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, huses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can list off the rest of the Amendments, but I hope you see the the point I'm trying to make with just those listed. If you want to change the interpretation of the ordinary citizen (the people) based on your views then you are hypocritical.

If you say you want to force the people to do what you want regardless of their decision or principles what makes you right, or a god, to do it?

The Court reasoned that African-Americans were never intended to be considered part of the people by the Founding Fathers. Which is true. The person who wrote "We hold these truths be self-evident that all men are created equal..." owned as many as 141 slaves. -- Patrick at February 20, 2014 4:26 AM

Just remember that wile TJ had slaves, good ole Honest Abe wanted to deport the freed slaves:

They found an order from Mr Lincoln in June 1863 authorising a British colonial agent, John Hodge, to recruit freed slaves to be sent to colonies in what are now the countries of Guyana and Belize.