1 2 > 
1 of 2
Woops!  Brownbackistan Backlash….
Posted: 14 February 2014 06:30 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Not so fast!  The Kansas Senate suddenly announced they won’t shove through the LBGT discrimination law.  The Kansas House passed it.  Now, the Speaker of the Kansas House says he shouldn’t have ever taken it to the floor of the assembly.  Businesses have been calling, saying they will lose business.  Taxpayers have been calling asking where the money to defend a flagrantly flawed law will come from.  All are admitting the law was poorly written and won’t be made law.

Too bad, the Manhattan City Commission wouldn’t listen to the same common sense.  A religious right majority, on the Commission at that time, decided they would push through the LBGT ordinance, regardless of how poorly it was written.  The next Commission rescinded it before the first lawsuits hit the street.

The Kansas Law was blatant discrimination against one group.  A business would not be allowed to discriminate against a mixed race marriage or an arranged marriage where a culture believes the female gender has no rights and can be “sold” to the person of the parent’s choice.  Yet, the law allowed discrimination against same-sex marriages.  “Equal protection” was out the window, thanks to the Deacons of Brownbackistan.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  287
Joined  2012-10-10

They figured out this would go straight to SCOTUS and get thrown out, I imagine.

The whole state operates like a small town, and only when the clear light of day exposes the rot do the politicians suddenly care what’s moral, ethical or legal. Unbelievable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 07:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

This bill has implications for more than just LGBT individuals.  Nowhere does the bill specify homosexuals, gays, lesbians or any other “classification” of people. The news media is eating this up because they can spin it into a discrimination story, but the bill does not specify which marriages or which sex or gender. For example, if one church holds specific beliefs that a marriage can only exist between a man and a woman and refuses to marry a homosexual couple, that church cannot be sued by said couple. HOWEVER, a church that holds specific beliefs that a marriage can only exist between the same sex, then that church can also refuse to marry a heterosexual couple in their church under this very same bill.  Ironically, this is already the law.  A church can’t be forced to marry anyone now or be specified by the government who can or cannot be married in the church.  This appears to just be language to make people feel good about the bill.  It means absolutely nothing legally.

Lines 6-12 on page 2 explain that if the “refusing” individual is employed by a governmental entity, then “the individual’s employer shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be done without undue hardship to the employer.”  So, if an employee works for a company that is willing to serve same sex couples, the state is now forcing the owner to allow that employee to not do his or her job and to have someone else do it for them.  But, what if a private business wants to discriminate?  This bill would give them the legal right to do so.


Even the president of AT&T Kansas recognizes this bill for the sham that it is:

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2014/02/14/att-speaks-out-against.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 February 2014 09:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  287
Joined  2012-10-10

The media isn’t spinning anything, this is discrimination under the guise of religious freedom. Saying heteros can be discriminated against too is silly; do you really believe Kansas has a host of businesses that want to discriminate against straight people celebrating their marriage? The claim that this is about “any” marriage is a dogwhistle, pure and simple. So is saying “this is just about lawsuits,” which I’ve seen on a lot of other forums in the last couple of days. This bill was yet another sneaky attempt by the state to get un-Constitutional, bigoted laws passed, hoping no one would notice.

And the “promptly provide” bit isn’t going to be much help if a police officer, EMT or other emergency personnel decide they can’t provide their “service” to someone based on their sexuality. “But it only took five minutes to find someone to help this guy out with his heart attack, that’s prompt!” This legislation, if passed, would mean the survivors couldn’t sue. It’s horrifying.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 05:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

Stacia, I am not saying there are businesses that want to discriminate against straight people celebrating their marriages; I am saying that the way the bill is written certainly opens the door to that possibility.  And I agree, this bill is horrific.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 09:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  287
Joined  2012-10-10

Ah, you mean they might have pulled back on supporting the bill because of the goofy wording? Or bit themselves in the hinder with the vague wording? I wondered that myself. If I recall, there was a similar issue with some marriage law back in the early or mid 2000s and they had to withdraw or re-word, but Google isn’t helpful so I can’t find the specific law I’m remembering.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

It’s not dead until it’s gone.  It’s not gone.  These yahoos are trying to exchange the John Birch Blue Book for the state constitution.  You see that fluoride is on the agenda now?  Anybody recall the Bircher’s in the 60’s?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 10:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  287
Joined  2012-10-10

I kind of zipped past this when I first read it and then came back.. and you are serious about the fluoride. Apparently Kansas has General Jack D. Ripper as a politician, and he’s worried about his precious bodily fluids.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 10:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  729
Joined  2013-07-13

It was in the news a couple of days ago.  State rep from Wichita with a bill outlawing fluoride in drinking water. The Koch’s daddy was a founding member of the Bircher’s.  You think they weren’t spoon-fed that garbage from the crib?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

The LAUGHABLE… really hilarious thing about the postings above????  The Brownbackistan Tea Baggers are going to outlaw fluoride in our water.  Why?  Because if, allegedly, “dumbs down” kids.  That same group, then, wants to outlaw the competency testing authorized by the State Board of Education.  Why?  Because it “teaches evolution”.  Shutting down the competency testing and stealing millions from the educaton budget… that won’t “dumb down” our kids.  I truly believe the ruling party of Brownbackistan, seriously, were “dumbed down” somewhere along the way.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 06:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Idle hands…. Sheesh!  Just Googled “Brownbackistan”.  It pops us in the “Urban Dictionary”.  The definitions is:

Brownbackistan
a pseudo-Christian fascist state where the arts are not publicly funded, women’s reproductive rights are relentlessly attacked, public school funding is drastically cut, voter suppression laws make it nearly impossible for new voters to register to vote, and social services are turned over to evangelical “Christian” groups, all done with the backing of the Koch brothers.
Brownbackistan is a place where civil responsibility takes a back seat to religious intolerance and corporate greed.

The Urban Dictionary definition was entered in 2011.  Not much has changed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2014 08:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  287
Joined  2012-10-10

A lot of what Brownie and his friends are pushing is going to get reversed sooner rather than later, so I have to think they’re just trying to solidify their base. This is basic Koch Bros M.O. - spend money on image, knowing that what happens in Kansas will get reported in Redstate, on Limbaugh, and other rightwing political websites, making this a national issue rather than a state issue. When it passes, the far right will cheer; when it gets revoked, they’ll use it as further evidence that the evil LIE-bruls are ruining the country. Politics as PR, and at the expense of Kansas children.

I do think, though, that with the increased globalization of commerce and business, it’ll become almost impossible for Kansas to keep doing this. Younger people will be more educated, regardless of how schools work (or don’t). Also, even someone like me who is stuck in the state because of finances can make purchasing decisions that keep my money from going to Kansas taxes (“Collected on Behalf of the Koch Brothers!”) or businesses that signed that Awaken Manhattan petition, etc. I just hope Kansas does eventually move forward and doesn’t end up like those southern states with terrible infrastructure and complete lack of education.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Wow!  Tried to post, but got a “blacklisted” message.  The message contained a link to an article in a Topeka newspaper.  Evidently, the local print media does not take kindly to having folks know other newspapers will allow you to read articles without paying a subscription.

A Wichita based Tea Party group is mounting an effort to revitalize the pro-discrimination bill.  Koch money is being tossed wildly at this issue in hopes they can erradicate folks of lesser standing from the State of Brownbackistan.  The Tea Party pushes for the opportunity of spending millions in Kansas tax dollars to defend the constitutionality of these laws.  Yet, we read that a southeast Kansas homeless shelter is closing due to Brownie cutting funding.  Can’t pay to provide shelter to 300 of the less fortunate, but can spend millons to pass a law which will return Kansas to an environment similar to the South pre-1964.  It appears Kochbach did a cut & paste of the proposed pro-discrimination law for Arizone.  Kochbach spent significant time authoring a voter disenfranchisement law for Arizona.  Arizona passed the law.  Let the Arizona taxpayers fund the constitutional challenges before burdening the Kansas taxpayers with the same litigation costs!!!  I “heart” Brownbackistan!!!!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 08:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

Interesting speculation….

Kansas’ Anti-Gay Bill May Have Been a Delightfully Ironic Political Ploy

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/21/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_was_the_discrimination_law_a_ploy_by_gov.html

But, as Randall suggests the bill isn’t dead until it’s dead.

Tea party group trying to revive bill that allows service refusal to same-sex couples on religious grounds

Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/21/3303200/tea-party-group-trying-to-revive.html#emlnl=Afternoon_Headlines_Newsletter#storylink=cpy

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 09:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  796
Joined  2012-10-10

Interesting read.  Don’t know if I completely agree.  Don’t think Brownie is that smart.  And, don’t think he would purposely kick sand in the Koch brothers faces.

Sheesh!  Just tried another link, this time to the Washington Times.  “Blacklisted”!!!  Just Google “Wichita Tea Party”.  There are any number of newspapers relating the story about the right wing group moving hard to get this bill still pushed through the Kansas Senate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 09:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  94
Joined  2011-07-25

I don’t necessarily agree with everything in it either, but nowadays one never knows.

As far as you not being able to post links, it’s curious as clearly I am not having any problems posting links from other media sources.

Profile
 
 
   
 1 2 > 
1 of 2
 

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502

Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without written consent.