The Beginning of the End (of discrimination)

[Thanatos 2,847]

A federal judge in Kentucky, deep red Kentucky, which has been strictly anti-gay marriage since this debate started, ruled yesterday that Kentucky's law allowing it to not recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state was unconstitutional, and thus was null and void.

 

The same judge, in his opinion, invites a challenge of Kentucky's same-sex marriage ban on the same grounds. At least three such challenges have been filed already.

 

I understood after the Windsor decision that this was only a matter of time, but I don't think many people understood just how fast this would be. It is looking like gay marriage could be legal in all fifty states in under a decade.

 

Since Windsor, we have had ten federal or state rulings about the issue of same-sex marriage. All ten have ruled in favor of same-sex marriage rights.

 

The tide turned with Windsor. But the fight is just about over. If even Kentucky is for gay marriage, then it truly is only a matter of time.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Good. I think within a few years there will be a federal case that does it at once for the states that don't allow it.

[blotsfan 2,112]

And for every piece of good news...

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

[OSUViking 505]

Windsor essentially forbade a state from refusing to recognize gay marriage. Sure, that state could ban marriages within their border, but they couldn't do anything about gay marraiges happening in other states. Really happy w/ the Windsor decision, and it's great that this is happening.

 

However, I'm not going to jump to America's praise quite yet. A lot of these overturns are at the hands of federal judges, not the people themselves or their representatives saying, "Hey, it's wrong to discriminate people like this." Still, happy with the results.

[OSUViking 505]

Almost started punching the wall when I read about that Kansas bill. Fucking pathetic.

[BigBen07 285]

And for every piece of good news...

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

Are you shitting me?

[GA_Eagle 595]

And for every piece of good news...

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

 

Ugg. The Republican Party continues to dig its own grave. I hate that there's no viable alternative to this idiocy for reasonable conservatives. I realize this is only a small group of state legislators but it reflects poorly on the party as a whole. There must be a decently large group of foolish Americans that think this is what being conservative is about and would support legalized segregation or they wouldn't do this, would they?

[Thanatos 2,847]

The problem, as we have discussed before, lies with the voting system. So long as it is "first past the post" it will be very difficult for a 3rd party to break onto the scene.

 

Let's say a group calling themselves the "Conservative Party" steps forward and tries to run. They are Republican in economics, Libertarian in gov't control, (drugs, homosexuality), and more importantly, aren't being backed by fundamentalist religious groups, at least not as their primary backer.

 

20% of Republicans jump ship, (that's a ton, it'd be more like 5% for a long time).

 

What happens?

 

The Democrats sweep everything. The CP is blamed by the Republicans for the Democrats taking everything and the GOP warns everyone not to vote for the CP again because it will just result in the Dems winning again- and it will.

 

The mirror image would happen should a similar party be formed on the left. So long as the 3rd party is taking away votes from the major political party to whom they are aligned the closest, it will be next to impossible to get actual choice involved in the political process. And given the fact that neither Repubs or Dems want to deal with challenges except from each other, they will do everything in their power to block any sort of voting reform legislation.

Edited February 15, 2014 by Thanatos19

[SteVo+ 3,702]

You're right, Thanatos, but the Democratic "sweep" you are referring to could certainly be enough to get the current Republican Party to pull their shit together. Forget the 2012 election for a second. Look at the demographics. With all the Hispanic growth in Texas and urban development of Georgia, those two solid red states could be battlegrounds before long. North Carolina was a solid red state 8 years ago, now a battleground state. Oregon was a battleground state 8 years ago, now a solid blue state.

 

Democrats have won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The problem with this supposed and really poorly thought out 3rd party that Thanatos is describing is that it already exists in a manner of sorts. It's not a full fledged party of it's own mind you... but the ideals are there and it shares those ideals with both major parties.

You have the fiscally responsible and hands off government on the right and socially liberal (decriminalization of marijuana, gay rights) on the left. This "party" pulls it's strongest followers from the socially liberal stance of equality for all and the endless expansion and balance of our civil and personal freedoms / rights. And everyone is anti-war, right? Well, everyone except mainstream democrats and republicans.

I don't disagree that you probably pull more from the Republican aisle... but with it comes a lot of Democrats and A LOT of Ind.

The problem isn't splitting the vote at this point in time, imo... It's just that that group isn't yet big enough. They don't get the media attention. They don't get the interviews, the night time specials, the front page of newspapers, etc etc. With out a more unbiased media conglomerate, the process in growing this theoretical 3rd party will be slowed to a crawl if not halted completely.

 

As I said though, I think this "party" already exists, and both the advantages and disadvantages I have named (among many others) are very real.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Sure you might pull some Dems, but it wouldn't be enough to prevent the Dems from winning the elections.

 

And ofc its poorly thought out, lol, the point was not to come up with a fully fledged political party.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Maybe, maybe not. But you have to remember that historically Republicans turn out to polling places in stronger numbers across the board. They can afford to lose more than democrats can. I don't think there is a candidate in the democratic party that can funnel democratic voters out in record numbers like Obama has.

 

My point was there was no need for you to try to do so, because there is already a splintering of the Republican party that satisfies the stipulations you were setting up in your hypothetical situation. No need to strain yourself that much coming up with a hypothetical that actually already exists. Ha.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Wait you think that its only because of Obama that the Dems have been wiping the floor with Republicans? I really feel like its because the GOP has gone bat-crazy and the country is about had enough of it.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Not what I said at all. Saying anything in an finite sense in politics is not wise. "Only", "Always", etc.. It just doesn't work. So, I wouldn't say that. I think it's a pretty easy call that Republicans are / have been a mess and haven't been able to find a quality candidate in numerous election cycles now. On top of the fact that that group is splintering away from the mainstream.. On top of the mess of a platform.. On top of Obama being a huge draw for a lot of demographics.

But Obama does draw a crowd, make no doubt about it. Right now the Dems are looking to be relying on Hilary very heavily if she ends up throwing her name out there... And if that happens, even with a fractured and weakened Republican party, I would be pretty surprised if she won the election.

 

She won't draw the relatively high number of Republicans that Obama was able to sway.. She won't be as enticing of a vote to independents... I can't believe she will excite young voters, who are turning out in record numbers. She will definitely be losing a chunk of the black vote. Hell, I don't even know if she will get a strong showing from women or democrats in general (relatively speaking, of course).

On top of that, you have the Benghazi stuff.. Which WILL NOT go away. I guarantee it. Might be cooling down right now, but I don't think she will have a proper response for it when her opponents are slinging the mud. And I think the general disappointments of the Obama administration and people slowly realizing that they got tricked and had the wool pulled over their eyes surely won't help.

As bad as the Reps. have had it in recent years, I really think the Dems have a huge uphill battle ahead of themselves. Granted, there is A LOT of time left.. More scandals could hit the other side of the aisle. Obama might literally work miracles. The names aren't even close to being finalized. So, again.. I am not saying this in any sort of finite sense of being. Just how I see things, right now... If we were looking at a potential Hilary VS the Republican field.

 

EDIT: Or even really any Democrat that has had their name lightly tossed around up until this point. I just don't like their chances. And this is coming from a more middle of the aisle hypothetical but not really hypothetical "3rd party" member voter as myself.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[Guest Phailadelphia]

There are many political polling services already showing HIllary up over every GOP and Democratic contender in just about every state and among the various demographics--young voters, minorities, independents, etc. just an FYI.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Tends to happen when you have only one potential candidate on one side and 4...5... 6 on the other. Even in head to heads, when people know they will be polling Hilary against 5-6 other potential opponents they will usually only pick one or two of those opponents to back, even if they are largely Republican. Not to mention Hilary has name recognition over everyone on the other side. The general American in the 1,132 or whatever people they poll will have no idea who is who facing Hilary nor what they stand for (granted, you could argue they still won't come election time. Ha)

 

Those same numbers you are quoting show Hilary with a larger lead on her opponents than Obama had in his victories. I personally guarantee that won't happen.. Maybe one of the finite things I will say in this thread. Lol.

On top of that, polls right now are most usually very bad indicators of final results. Hilary supposedly had this amount of support the last time around as well before she tripped over herself, didn't get the turnout everyone predicted, and walked away with her head down and tail between her legs.

I expect more of the same, but again.. Anything could happen.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[oochymp 2,393]

And for every piece of good news...

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/13/kansas_anti_gay_segregation_bill_is_an_abomination.html

A lot of people have expressed a lot of concern over this bill, but I actually don't really mind it for the most part, I know this isn't a popular opinion so please hear me out, I hope I can explain my reasoning so that even if you still don't agree you at least understand. There is a summary at the bottom, but if you reply in such a way that it seems you didn't read the full post I will condescendingly re-direct you to it

 

First of all, read the bill itself: www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

 

now since I know most people didn't click that link I'm going to include the provisions I talk about, here's the key part:

 

Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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:

(a) 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;

(b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or

(c ) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.

 

now let me deconstruct this real quick, this is actually a pretty carefully crafted piece of legislation, I will say I'm a little iffy on (c ) as I think if the State recognizes a marriage as valid than everyone in the State should have to recognize it as legally valid. Legally speaking marriage is basically just a contract, and the State and parties involved get to determine the application of contracts, not third parties.

 

First, the law only applies to individuals and religious entities, religious entity is defined in the statute as follows:

Sec. 3 As used in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto:

(a) "Religious entity" means an organization, regardless of its non-profit or for-profit status, and regardless of whether its activities are deemed wholly or partly religious, that is:

(1) A religious corporation association, educational institution or society;

(2) an entity operated, supervised or controlled by, or connected with a religious corporation; or

(3) a privately-held business operating consistently with its sincerely held religious beliefs, with regard to any activity described in section 1, and amendments thereto.

 

I anticipate the third point to be read narrowly, making it very difficult for businesses that don't have direct church affiliations to qualify, and if a privately-held business doesn't qualify under (3) then this bill provides them no protection at all

 

Second, this explicitly applies to actions "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement," another phrase I anticipate being read narrowly. At it's most obvious base, this means that the State will not be able to compel a church to host a same-sex wedding. I think a church would be able to prevent such coercion based on the First Amendment, but having a statutory base isn't a bad thing.

 

Anyway, nobody is worried about the obvious base, but what is the furthest extent? Situations where a person is employed for something directly involved with the wedding I think would fall under any construction, I remember an issue recently where someone got in trouble for refusing to bake the cake for a same-sex wedding, I think that would qualify, I think catering the wedding banquet would pretty easily fall under it, same thing with a photographer, but anything beyond that I think would be a stretch. Could you refuse to rent two tuxes to two men who are marrying each other? Potentially, same with wedding dresses to women. Could you refuse to rent a room to a same-sex couple who's on their honeymoon? Potentially since you can argue that the honeymoon is the celebration of the marriage, but the hotel would have to qualify as a religious entity, which would be incredibly difficult (see next point) I would also argue that the honeymoon is no different from any other vacation. Either way, I think that's the furthest possible extent.

 

EDIT: I realized in looking again that this section is not accurate due to a misreading of the bill on my part, see my next post: http://www.thegridironpalace.com/forums/index.php?/topic/68853-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-discrimination/&do=findComment&comment=2511651

 

Third, if an individual denies service to someone based on this bill then his/her employer is still on the hook. Here's another section of this bill:

 

Sec. 2 ...

(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service that is otherwise consistent with the entity's duties or policies, the individual's employer, in directing the performance of such service, 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

 

That means that if someone at the tux shop refuses to fit a man for a tux for his same-sex wedding, unless the tux shop qualifies as a religious entity then they've gotta get another employee to do the fitting. If a baker doesn't want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding then someone else who works at the bakery would have to do it, if it's a small bakery with only one baker then I think he or she would have to at least provide a reference to another bakery to fulfill this provision. If a caterer doesn't want to work the reception for a same-sex wedding then his employer would have to find someone else to work it, I think you see where this is going, and it brings me to my next point.

 

Fourth, there is nothing in this bill that would prevent an employer from firing an employee for invoking this statute. This may be covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on religion (among other things) but I don't think so. It would be an interesting case to see, but I think ultimately the employer would win based on the legitimate business reason for firing the employee, namely that the employee keeps refusing to work. The corollary to this is that there's nothing in the act that protects individuals or businesses that do press for "religious entity" qualification from market forces.

 

 

TL;DR: The bottom line is that I think this law is a lot narrower than a lot of people are acting like. It doesn't allow many businesses to do anything and it doesn't allow individuals to refuse service to someone just because they're gay. What it does is allows individuals and "religious entities" to refuse to participate in any way in same-sex marriages on religious grounds. I don't actually think this gives any rights that aren't at least arguably already there based on the First Amendment, it just provides a statutory basis which facilitates the legal process.

Edited February 17, 2014 by oochymp

[Guest Phailadelphia]

If we were to replace all terms regarding "same-sex marriage" in this bill with, I don't know, say, "african americans," would you still find it acceptable?

 

This is a pretty good read on that law's implication's as well: http://www.businessinsider.com/when-will-social-conservatives-stop-demanding-special-rights-2014-2

Edited February 17, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[oochymp 2,393]

So, looking at the bill again, I realize I misread Section 1 (a), the "related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement" only modifies the providing employment or employment benefits section. That pretty much entirely negates a lot of my post and definitely makes this a much broader bill, but looking again I still don't think it'll be as readily available as everyone thinks because of the first part of Section 1:

 

Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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:

 

 

That bolded section means that if anyone wants to take advantage of this bill they would have to say that the action requested would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs, which means that if someone wants to refuse to serve a same-sex couple in a restaurant they would have to argue that helping gay people eat is contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs. And again, the restaurant can't kick them out unless it qualifies as a "religious entity."

I don't really support the bill, but I don't think it's as bad as a lot of people are acting like, as an example, the article Phail posted includes this:

Let's say ... you're a police officer and you don't want to respond to a domestic abuse complaint from a same-sex couple. If this bill becomes law, that will become your right.

 

 

In order to not respond to a domestic abuse complaint from a same-sex couple the officer would have to argue that it would be contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs to investigate a crime involving a same-sex couple, have fun explaining that to your supervisor.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

But he could do it it, which is the problem. Who's to say punishment from his supervisor wouldn't lead to a civil suit? The guy's "religious liberty," was infringed on by his supervisor, a government employee and thus the government, because he was forced to assist a same-sex couple. And that's just the first example that came to mind. Do you see what kind of issues this can create? Worst part is, these same-sex couples pay the salaries of these cops and firefighters, but now they have an obligation to "Protect & Serve....As long as you're not gay"?

 

Point is, we shouldn't be having this debate. Period. I'd say it's embarrassing for the state of Kansas that this kind of legislation was even proposed, but Texas has elected mavericks like Ted Cruz and Steve Stockman to the most powerful deliberative body in the world, so my state is guilty of the same shit.

 

Last thought on this: Think about the kind of precedent this law would create. This notion of religious liberty creating an exception to the civil rights of others isn't new. Plantation owners used christianity to justify slavery. Whites used christianity to justify opposition to interracial marriage. Now we're okay with republicans using christianity to justify denying same-sex couples the same rights that so many fought & died for leading up to the 1960s? It's literally the exact same issue, and no one should be okay with it. Period. If your religion mandates the suppression of certain citizens based on something of which they have no control, and treat them like 2nd-class citizens for it, then maybe it's time that religion re-think its principles.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Phailadelphia

[oochymp 2,393]

But he could do it it, which is the problem. Who's to say punishment from his supervisor wouldn't lead to a civil suit? The guy's "religious liberty," was infringed on by his supervisor, a government employee and thus the government, because he was forced to assist a same-sex couple. And that's just the first example that came to mind. Do you see what kind of issues this can create? Worst part is, these same-sex couples pay the salaries of these cops and firefighters, but now they have an obligation to "Protect & Serve....As long as you're not gay"?

I refer you to point 4 in my original post, I think the question would be close, but I think the police would be able to assert a legitimate business reason for the firing (or whatever adverse action was taken) and based on public policy the argument is even stronger in this case than most as who knows what could result from the delayed police response, they could go from investigating a domestic abuse claim to investigating a murder. I also think it's worth noting that the police force as a whole (or any other government entity for that matter) will never be able to qualify for protection under this, so this does nothing to infringe the rights of homosexuals in regard to the government.

 

Point is, we shouldn't be having this debate. Period. I'd say it's embarrassing for the state of Kansas that this kind of legislation was even proposed, but Texas has elected mavericks like Ted Cruz and Steve Stockman to the most powerful deliberative body in the world, so my state is guilty of the same shit.

I can agree with that, at least to the extent of it being unnecessary. I think the only protections this gives that are really needed are already protected by the First Amendment (for example, the government will never be able to force a church to administer a gay marriage) I'm just contending that the bill is not as broad as

[blotsfan 2,112]

And while we weren't looking, look what just happened/

 

http://www.bilerico.com/2014/02/breaking_az_senate_passes_right_to_discriminate_bi.php

[RazorStar 4,025]

The words under my avatar have never been so appropriate.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Taking a devil's advocate approach, and one I have thought about a lot regarding this...

Is this really that horrible of a thing? People own businesses, do they not have the right to refuse service to those they choose? Now, I know what you are thinking... But, then those owners are bigots!

 

Yes... yes they are. I would imagine this would be known about a restaurant or it's owners though and their business would, overall, be negatively effected. They want to take that loss, I say that's on them... And whether this is law or not, it doesn't change the actual opinions of the owners. Do the LGBT really want to go to restaurants (or wherever) and pay for services to those who do not support equal rights?

Bills like these would out the bigots and push them aside. They would either have to adapt, and allow customers or fall to the wayside.

I absolutely hate the idea of refusing customers based on their sexuality. I am not splitting hairs here... But I also don't really like the idea of government basically forcing business owners to provide services to anybody, really, not just those in the LGBT community.

 

I think society is strong enough to weed out the bad apples, if/when this legislation stands.

 

Food for thought.

[OSUViking 505]

Taking a devil's advocate approach, and one I have thought about a lot regarding this...

 

Is this really that horrible of a thing? People own businesses, do they not have the right to refuse service to those they choose?

 

I asked my government teacher this. They aren't allowed to because it potentially interferes with interstate commerce or something.