In Kansas, a bill to protect religious freedom angers gays

posted at 4:55 pm on February 16, 2012 by Tina Korbe

The Department of Health and Human Services has states spooked. At least, legislators in Kansas cited the administration’s contraception mandate as a reason to expedite passage of a bill to protect religious freedoms:

Supporters of a proposal in Kansas that’s described as an attempt to protect religious freedoms told state legislators Tuesday that President Obama’s ill-fated mandate for insurance coverage of birth control is a compelling example of why the measure is needed. …

The state House Judiciary Committee had a hearing on the proposed Preservation of Religious Freedom Act and is expected to vote on it by Monday. State Rep. Lance Kinzer, a Republican who is committee chairman, contends the measure simply writes into state law language from past Kansas court decisions for determining when government policies place too much of a burden on practicing religion. …

The bill would declare that state- and local-government policies shall not “substantially burden” people’s right to exercise their religious beliefs without showing a compelling interest and imposing the burden in the least restrictive way possible. It also would declare that people have the right to sue state and local government agencies if they feel their religious freedoms have been abridged.

Liberal activists in the state are not happy about this statute — but not because they support the president’s mandate (although they probably do). No, they’re worried that the Preservation of Religious Freedom Act will be used to nullify local and state laws to prevent bias — not just discrimination, but bias — against gays. The bill specifically says that the prevention of discriminatory practices — as outlined by Kansas state law and the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions — is a compelling interest for which the state might burden the free exercise of religion. It says nothing about local anti-bias ordinances that seek to make up for the fact that Kansas state law does nothing to prevent discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

The response of these gay activists is instructive. It’s a further indication that some gay advocates think the free exercise of religion — when it reveals a bias against gay behavior — should itself be construed as discrimination. It underscores that an overlap exists between the purported rights of gays to marry and the long-acknowledged, constitutionally-enshrined right to religious freedom. Someday, for example, might the state not compel churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies or compel landlords to rent to gay couples even if they’re religiously opposed to gay behavior? I know a landlord who won’t rent to cohabiting couples because she’s religiously opposed. Should she not have the right to rent her property to whomever she wishes? The battle for state-recognized same-sex marriage is thorny precisely because of the way in which it eventually touches on religious freedom.

Incidentally, this Kansas statute sounds a little like the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed the House of Representatives unanimously, passed the Senate by a vote of 97-3 and was signed into law by Bill Clinton. That statute says the federal government may “substantially burden” a person’s “exercise of religion” only if it “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering” that interest. The existence of the federal law doesn’t obviate the need for similar laws at a state level, but it is worth noting in this post that the federal law exists — and the HHS contraception mandate is in clear violation of it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

I’ve concluded you’re a socialist atheist. Is that correct?

darwin on February 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM

it’s half true.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM

From your mothers, or fathers side?

portlandon on February 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

*opens door*

*peeks in*

*closes door*

*continues on merry way*

JetBoy on February 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Jeddite on February 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM

In order to shorten the description, and thereby avoiding the real meaning of the word homosexual, how about going back to the original short cut – fay?

OldEnglish on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Then why is ObamaCare mandating it then?

darwin on February 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I don’t see how the legislation does mandate the contraception rule… but the ruling I cited above does and it hasn’t been overturned yet.

lexhamfox on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

I’m glad KS is doing this, but they shouldn’t have to. Religious Freedom is protected by the Constitution but mandated Contraception or Health care is not.

And what does Contraception have to do with health care anyway? It’s because America has fallen into the gutter morally, and liberal ideology has destroyed the nuclear family.

kirkill on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

JetBoy on February 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Jetboy!

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

The bill specifically says that the prevention of discriminatory practices — as outlined by Kansas state law and the Kansas and U.S. Constitutions — is a compelling interest for which the state might burden the free exercise of religion.

Can someone show me where exactly the Constitution prohibits discriminatory practices by private individuals? Discriminatory practices by public officials, sure, but private individuals?

Count to 10 on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

we need a freedom from religion and superstition act.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 5:19 PM

YEAH!! SHUT THOSE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE UP BY LAW AND SEND THEM TO CAMPS!!!!!

It’s people like you who lead us down the road to ovens, sesqui.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

You’re a Maoist/atheist?

Communist/Wiccan?

darwin on February 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

politically i’m not sure, the no labels label is already taken.

but yeah, i’m not superstitious. especially since i read the bible.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM

JetBoy on February 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM

+1

kunegetikos on February 16, 2012 at 6:13 PM

especially since i read the bible.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Do you mean “I’ve read the Bible” or I read (reed) the Bible”?

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Loophole for the gays: claim that homosexuality is the religion that worships the gods Lesbos and Homos…

affenhauer on February 16, 2012 at 5:02 PM

They aren’t interested in exceptions from laws, they want to pin other people down with laws.
“Gay culture” is defined by hatred.

Count to 10 on February 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

From your mothers, or fathers side?

portlandon on February 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

what if i have two daddies? don’t be discriminatory.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Can someone show me where exactly the Constitution prohibits discriminatory practices by private individuals? Discriminatory practices by public officials, sure, but private individuals?

Count to 10 on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

It doesn’t… Freedom of Association is supposed to be in there as evidenced by cases like Griswold, but the same Supreme Court that ruled on that Katzenbach. It was the first case..This case actually said that private companies couldn’t discriminate on the the basis of race because it interfered with the commerce clause thus extending the reach of the commerce clause.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM

It’s people like you who lead us down the road to ovens, sesqui.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

do you find reductio ad hitlerum a productive tactic?

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM

“Gay culture” is defined by hatred.

Count to 10 on February 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I know of zero homosexuals that are truly happy. Much like the empty Hollywood types.

In order for the militant homosexuals to feel better psychologically about their deviant (not normal) behavior, they must first force the general population into accepting their behavior as ‘normal’.
The agenda pushed by politicians and Hollywood (‘popular culture’) is just bread and circuses for the masses.
Our country is being destroyed by marxist elements put in place (unwittingly) by the entertainment tonight crowd.

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Do you mean “I’ve read the Bible” or I read (reed) the Bible”?

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM

yes.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Also, they seem to fail to understand that Obamacare violates this 1st Amendment, but it is the Obamacare where this mandate is coming from.

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM
It has nothing to do with Obamacare. It has to do with Federal Court and EEOC rulings which took place before Obama even thought of running for President.

lexhamfox on February 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

So you are saying that Religious Organizations and Churches and their extended Charities were mandated under that Fed. Court/EEOC ruling you reference to? That invalidated their Religious Freedoms to practice their Faith and Beliefs? And also mandated Private Sector Insurance Companies to provide and pay for all that this current mandate does which is under discussion?

If that is true and I don’t believe it is, then why did this latest mandate come from HHS?

So according to you, HHS & B.O. have made a mistake?

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Isn’t the larger point that there are already numerous court rulings and laws on the books which already protect religious freedom, but the state of Kansas has NO legislative protections against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Gay Kansas residents can still be fired because of their sexuality and have no recourse….

libfreeordie on February 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Yup.

And straight Kansas residents can still be fired because of their sexual orientation and have no recourse.

Equal treatment, equal opportunity.

northdallasthirty on February 16, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Looks like the Gaystapo is alive and well in Kansas, Toto.

drowningpuppies on February 16, 2012 at 6:33 PM

I’ve concluded you’re a socialist atheist. Is that correct?

darwin on February 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM
it’s half true.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM
From your mothers, or fathers side?

portlandon on February 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM

what if i have two daddies? don’t be discriminatory.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

The parents were siblings!?

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Yup.

And straight Kansas residents can still be fired because of their sexual orientation and have no recourse.

Equal treatment, equal opportunity.

northdallasthirty on February 16, 2012 at 6:30 PM

I just have to wonder when/if anti-discriminatory policies get past when affirmative action for gays, transgenders, bisexual kick in? SCOTUS has used these programs to even the playing field for all the years of discrimination against black people. I am waiting for the equivalent for gays.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 6:35 PM

I think the word “Contraception” is not being understood according to the HHS mandate. It is birth control, the morning after pill, various other drugs that can induce an abortion, devices, and abortion. This has nothing to do with women’s health.

To mandate that Americans give up their Religious Liberty and PAY for these procedures is in violation of the 1st Amendment. To mandate Insurance Companies to provide and PAY for them is also a violation.

What is next, a mandate for Doctors and Nurses to participate?

This mandate came from HHS which has almost complete authority under Obamacare.

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 6:36 PM

politically i’m not sure, the no labels label is already taken.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Well, I have a good idea where you stand politically. You should as well. There are only two choices.

darwin on February 16, 2012 at 6:37 PM

It’s clear that there are two sides that people view this debate from. (A), Through the lens of religious freedom being “attacked”. Or (B), through the lens of the religious “attacking” freedom.

(A), has valid points and a solid argument to make that they ARE the majority and have been since the colonies, since we came from Europe and all that. (Now now, Native Americans don’t count.;) ) Why should they be forced to conform to a minority when doing so, in fact, compromises their religious beliefs? That is clearly, VERY clearly a hindrance to their free practice of their religion, and Christians are the unopposed solid majority here. Why should they come second? A fair question.

(B), while being a minority, holds their own set of values, worldview, and intuition. They also have a valid argument to make. In their lives, they do not hold doctrines of the bible as infallible. Some are diests, agnostics, just regular folks who don’t spend much time thinking about those things, atheists, new wave tolerance Christians, and spiritual individualists. To them these are issues of freedom or equality(depending on the specific social topic)and the right to not have to be forced to accept rulings or laws that they feel violate those very notions to them just the same way. They can say that just because you might be able to get a majority of people to vote for something doesn’t mean that it can violate others freedoms. And they’d be right.

And what you end up with here is a good ole’ fashioned North American Mexican Stand-Off. Abortion and contraceptives. Gay marriage and gay rights. Issues of education. Etc…

My take:
Abortion, if the war is to be won it will have to be on human backgrounds not religious ones. Even in cases of rape and incest, no leeway or time window, is cruel though and ain’t gonna happen. But it’s not hard to formulate an argument against uncurbed abortion rights without making it a religious matter. The argument CAN be won. But both sides have legal standing to be party to the decision and well dessiminated and legitimized intellectual claims to some form of redress of their grievances in the debate, which means, nobody.will.ever. get to have it completely their way. We are a nation of laws, upright and indeed, mainstream Christian ideals, but America is not a congregation and everybody has the right to petition the govt for redress of the grievances. Sometimes, the decisions that come down require more than just a majority. They require that our traditions of law, order, freedom, and equal presentation before that law deem things the majority doesn’t like as legally justifiable and consideration will be given to that like it or not. But a huge amount of progress on the issue IS possible. Which brings us to the second issue.

Contraception…. Come on guys, going to bat against allow women as free individuals to insure themselves for birth control and the pap smears and things that come along with it doesn’t help anybody and it sure as hell doesn’t help the case against abortion, the real evil. You really gonna go to bat against preventative measures as well as the after the fact if said preventative measures failed(i.e. aborting a taken pregnancy)? You want abortion illegal or at least severely limited, you’re gonna have to make contraceptive available, readily, always, right on hand to people in order to make a case afterwards that, “well, you were given every opportunity to avoid this scenario, ending up pregnant.” Just don’t do it. It’s a bad idea. I promise you. This is the modern world. Contraceptives are accepted. Make sure people have them. It’s one of the best ways to prevent abortions.

Gay marriage: Your church should never be able to be told it must marry homosexual couples or accept the validity of their marriages. But you also can’t tell the church down the street that they can’t if they choose to, religious freedom and all that. A pretty good new covenant based interpretation of Christianity could pretty easily make a case that it’s ok to allow them to marry, worth a much higher volume quoted new testament scripture to support their case than those opposes them. You don’t have to accept it. You do have to go to a church that does. But other people can if they like and it’s there. Welcome to America. As for the govt’s role, it should be an impartial party. Marriage is a spiritual matter, but also a LEGAL one. Legally the govt shouldn’t be able to tell people they can’t enter a consensual legal contract together if they can meet all the requirements. Animals don’t meet the requirements to be defendants in court or consciously agree to a contract. Neither can minors. So many of the long dark road scenarios where next its man-dog marriage or whatever else are dubious at best, intellectually lazy at worst. But I don’t think you’ll see a Triumphant resurgence of support for traditional marriage in the future. I sincerely honestly just don’t. Exactly the opposite. The youth has little to no interest in sexual orientation hang-ups. It’ll never win EVERYBODY, but it will eventually win the majority and in THIS case the religious have no LEGAL standing with which to deny homosexuals the right to enter into the legal contractual form of marriage, only philosophical grounds. If your church doesn’t have to conform, take part, or recognize the validity of those marriages, then you as an individual have not been harmed or hindered in the free practice of YOUR faith in any way. Society is bigger than JUST your take, denomination, or religion. And I’m afraid, in time, for good or ill, we’ll have to just accept it in time. It doesn’t really hurt anybody. You married? I would have never known and your marriage has had no affect on my life, whatsoever. So it is… And it will be. Eventually. It’s an issue of freedom. Opposition is an issue of restricting that freedom. That loses every time.

All this has just gotta end somewhere. It’s stupid. I mean are we REALLY getting caught up in all this again? Right effing’ now? To what end? It’s ruining the chances we have to ACTUALLY right this ship before it goes down in infighting and bs over repeatedly argued crap when there are more important things to worry about right now?!?! Like hello, Obama, the economy, the middle east, trade, currencies, energy and energy resources? For the love of god. Put it to bed. Above is my best answer for how to do that. Eviscerate it how you will.

Hi Rick. Santorum 2012. /

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 6:38 PM

For crying out loud, what DOESN’T anger gays?
MikeinPRCA on February 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Vampire Love stories

Tim_CA on February 16, 2012 at 5:08 PM

And glitter. Lots and lots of sparkly glitter.

forcing churches to marry gays is on no one’s agenda and when conservatives bring that up you just give liberals a straw man they can use.

ninjapirate on February 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Who says it’s a straw man? Are you sure it’s a straw man? I can see them doing that.

Homosexual activists have already tried suing, or creating other problems, for people in America who don’t support homosexuality, such as business owners or churches who refused to provide services or property for homosexual weddings.

European Christians have faced even more harassment (some got jail time and some were threatened with it) for speaking out against homosexuality in public.

Do you not beleive that the words “Gay” and “Homosexual” mean the same thing in modern society?

Your argument baffles me.

Tim_CA on February 16, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Use of the word “gay” rather than “homosexual” is a tactic created by homosexual activists to desensitize Americans to homosexuality and make it seem less objectionable. I’m not sure, but I think this tactic was first mentioned in the homosexual propaganda book “After the Ball.”

This page might mention it:
How ‘gay rights’ is being sold to America

TigerPaw on February 16, 2012 at 6:39 PM

lexhamfox on February 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I would suggest that you listen to Mark Levin. I do and he has never mentioned the Federal Courts or the EEOC regarding this HHS mandate.

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM

“Somewhere over the rainbow…”

drowningpuppies on February 16, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Come on guys, going to bat against allow women as free individuals to insure themselves for birth control and the pap smears and things that come along with it doesn’t help anybody

You can’t see me rolling my eyes, but I am.. No one is going against birth control. We are going against the ability of the government to force OTHER people to pay for their birth control.

but also a LEGAL one. Legally the govt shouldn’t be able to tell people they can’t enter a consensual legal contract together if they can meet all the requirements.

They aren’t. Two homosexuals can make all the legal contracts they want. Marriage is reserved for state interest and it has always been about legal tradition and children. And states do and have told people who they can and can’t marry..If the state can’t then everyone can get married and than we don’t need state marriage.

And I’m afraid, in time, for good or ill, we’ll have to just accept it in time. It doesn’t really hurt anybody. You married? I would have never known and your marriage has had no affect on my life, whatsoever.

Tell that to to the Catholic Adoption agencies or the parents in Massachusetts who lost parental rights because gay marriage was legalized.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM

All this has just gotta end somewhere. It’s stupid. I mean are we REALLY getting caught up in all this again? Right effing’ now? To what end? It’s ruining the chances we have to ACTUALLY right this ship before it goes down in infighting and bs over repeatedly argued crap when there are more important things to worry about right now

BTW, yeah we have to get into this crap right frickin now. This is another issue about relgious people going about their business leaving EVERYONE alone, and then having the government shove something down their throat. This is again religion responding..

And what you knuckleheads don’t get is if religion is not a sacred right- then neither is speech or expression or any other right that someone thinks is important.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 6:51 PM

The fact that they object is not the least bit surprising really, considering Teh Gays tend to see discrimination on virtually the exact same timetable as democrats see racism (that’d be 24-7-365).

Tim Zank on February 16, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Tsk, tsk, Tim. You forgot 2012 is a leap year. Make that 24-7-366.

CJ on February 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 6:48 PM

I have pretty much concluded that he/she/it is a lib sent here just to screw up the place. Reminds me of the kids who used to play in the leaf piles after I raked the yard.

Anger doesn’t even come close to describing my feelings towards those little vermin. Blind rage with chainsaws comes closer.

platypus on February 16, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Also, they seem to fail to understand that Obamacare violates this 1st Amendment, but it is the Obamacare where this mandate is coming from.

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 5:47 PM
It has nothing to do with Obamacare. It has to do with Federal Court and EEOC rulings which took place before Obama even thought of running for President.

lexhamfox on February 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

So you are saying that Religious Organizations and Churches and their extended Charities were mandated under that Fed. Court/EEOC ruling you reference to? That invalidated their Religious Freedoms to practice their Faith and Beliefs? And also mandated Private Sector Insurance Companies to provide and pay for all that this current mandate does which is under discussion?

If that is true and I don’t believe it is, then why did this latest mandate come from HHS?

So according to you, HHS & B.O. have made a mistake?

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Well if you are a Catholic organization which is involved in providing the public with non-religious services and they provide employees with health insurance then yes it probably does.

But religious organizations like churches and seminaries are likely exempt from that entire body of law per cases that have already taken place so they can discriminate against hiring women priests and they can probably kick a nun out if she gets pregnant or a priest who has a family on the side. So they can do many things that many other entities can’t.

The HHS is already federal policy (via a court ruling) already state law in quite a few states so I would expect there to be cases all over the place providing further resolution and the laws range and limits. I think (I’m guessing) the HHS were just making public their review and that they were being compliant with existing rulings such as the one I cited earlier.

So according to you, HHS & B.O. have made a mistake?

No but the EEOC ruling could have limits placed on it or be overturned entirely by a higher court.

lexhamfox on February 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM

lexhamfox on February 16, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I would suggest that you listen to Mark Levin. I do and he has never mentioned the Federal Courts or the EEOC regarding this HHS mandate.

bluefox on February 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Mark Levin isn’t judge or judicial panel and listening to him won’t make existing rulings go away.

lexhamfox on February 16, 2012 at 7:01 PM

And what you knuckleheads don’t get is if religion is not a sacred right- then neither is speech or expression or any other right that someone thinks is important.
melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 6:51 PM

No one is saying its not a sacred right. I don’t think you’ll find evidence of that in my post anywhere. I agre with you. I believe your religion is a sacred right. But not so far that it infringes on the sacred rights of Americans who aren’t Christian or don’t see Christianity the same way that you do. Pretty clear to me. I will vehemently argue for the rights of autonomy for your church, so long as it doesn’t compromise or put anyone else’s rights on a lower pedestal.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I believe your religion is a sacred right

I never said I was relgious…

But not so far that it infringes on the sacred rights of Americans who aren’t Christian or don’t see Christianity the same way that you do.

And how exactly is religion doing this?

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 7:15 PM

In order to shorten the description, and thereby avoiding the real meaning of the word homosexual, how about going back to the original short cut – fay?

OldEnglish on February 16, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Yeah, but “fay” (or “fey” as it is now bastardized) has been co-opted by the militant Dungeons & Dragons agenda as a catch-all euphemism for fairies, pixies, sylphs, sprites, … wait

Jeddite on February 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM

But not so far that it infringes on the sacred rights of Americans who aren’t Christian or don’t see Christianity the same way that you do. Pretty clear to me. I will vehemently argue for the rights of autonomy for your church, so long as it doesn’t compromise or put anyone else’s rights on a lower pedestal.

Boomer_Sooner on February 16, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Having your employer pay for your abortions is not by any stretch of the imagination a “sacred right”.

If you want your employer to pay for your abortions, then work for someone who offers that in your health plan. If an employer doesn’t, then don’t work for them.

northdallasthirty on February 16, 2012 at 7:24 PM

forcing churches to marry gays is on no one’s agenda and when conservatives bring that up you just give liberals a straw man they can use.

ninjapirate on February 16, 2012 at 5:01 PM

See for me, thats the big question and why I can no longer politically support gay marriage. I don’t trust the gay/PC agenda lobby not to go down that route 5-10 years after gay marriage is allowed. They do not push for tolerance but to force acceptance of their lifestyle by various laws.

Ultimately, I don’t care much about gay marriage, live and let live as it were. However, given the politics of most gay marriage supporters it is the next natural step after approval. Progressives won’t stop progressing, its against their nature.

oryguncon on February 16, 2012 at 7:25 PM

we need a freedom from religion and superstition act.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Comments like that are really silly and revealing imo.

Everyone has a freedom from religion. Act on it, and stop obsessing.
Its like someone who is a vegan complaining about all the hamburger and steak joints “everywhere”, wishing for a “freedom from hamburgers and steaks Act”. Its just silly. Don’t like religion?…don’t join a church…don’t like hamburgers?…drive past the McDonalds.

Its really no more complicated than that. Unless you make it more complicated.

Mimzey on February 16, 2012 at 7:29 PM

we need a freedom from religion and superstition act.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 5:19 PM

The only way that can be done is to ban all religious belief.

If you would simply state that that’s your desire, we might respect your honesty.

northdallasthirty on February 16, 2012 at 7:31 PM

what if i have two daddies? don’t be discriminatory.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

From a scientific and biological perspect it is not possible. If it was I would suspect you had two daddies and you were born with a big splash in a commode after a night of beer and Chipotle.

CW on February 16, 2012 at 7:32 PM

what if i have two daddies? don’t be discriminatory.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

How about one daddy and two or three mommies?

How about a daddy and a mommy who are also brother and sister?

How about two daddies who are father and son?

How about two daddies, only one of which is human?

You do realize that if you’re against any of those you’re “discriminating” and not treating people “equally”.

And of course, you’re doing it out of “animus” and a desire to deprive people of “rights”?

northdallasthirty on February 16, 2012 at 7:37 PM

what if i have two daddies? don’t be discriminatory.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Then I feel sorry you did not have a normal childhood with a loving Mother who is a woman.

Robert Jensen on February 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Hehe, a lot of things Kansas does seems to anger gays. The last hullabaloo about a month ago was Kansas’ refusal to remove the anti-sodomy laws that are still on its books.

ZachV on February 16, 2012 at 7:51 PM

northdallasthirty on February 16, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Yours too, btw.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.21.htm

ZachV on February 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM

I love how the words “religious freedom” and “free exercise of religion” have somehow come up as if there was a debate on those issues, or if somehow religion was in some sort of trouble.

How much in taxes do religions pay? Oh right, nothing. Poor religion. I feel so bad for them. Meanwhile all that non-taxable money is going to settlements for pedophiles. nice.

On the “gay activist” side, or as I like to call them, reasonable human beings, kids in MN are committing suicide because of michelle bachmann’s crazy “gay neutrality” laws that disallow teaching staff from defending young girls when they are abused and harassed based on their sexual orientation.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM

It says nothing about local anti-bias ordinances that seek to make up for the fact that Kansas state law does nothing to prevent discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations based on sexual orientation.

Because, heaven forbid, gays be allowed to rent an apartment or get a job without fear of being fired just because they’re gay.

Please, NO ONE tell these religious conservatives the types of people that Jesus hung out with, they might have an aneurysm.

It's Vintage, Duh on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

The only way that can be done is to ban all religious belief.

No, we just need to ban religion influencing law.

The point where I ‘freak out’ about religion is when you people try to make some sort of law dictating your made-up bullshit onto other people.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

On the “gay activist” side, or as I like to call them, reasonable human beings, kids in MN are committing suicide because of michelle bachmann’s crazy “gay neutrality” laws that disallow teaching staff from defending young girls when they are abused and harassed based on their sexual orientation.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM

THat is ridiculous. Teachers can address that issue by addressing bullying. It doesn’t matter WHY the child is getting abused. And the law doesn’t state the teacher can’t say gay. Read the damn policy.

Because, heaven forbid, gays be allowed to rent an apartment or get a job without fear of being fired just because they’re gay

Freedom of association and property rights are quite set in the constitution. Employers fire straight people whose values they don’t like all the time.

No, we just need to ban religion influencing law

And the above statement is why me as an unreligious person is never going to support the gay movement. If they think that religious freedom (something listed specifically in the Constitution) then they think other rights like speech are negotiable as well.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM

If they think that religious freedom

Whoa – all in favor of religious freedom here. It’s for that reason that I’m able to be an atheist in this country, unlike say, some countries in the middle east.

But it’s also the reason why ONE religion can’t just write up laws for the sole purpose of furthering their religious beliefs. I mean, what if muslims came into power and started dictating all women had to wear burkas? You’d be in favor of that because of “religious freedom”? Freakin’ doubt it.

It doesn’t matter WHY the child is getting abused.

Yeah, it does. Fat kids and geeks don’t have laws explicitly discriminating against their rights.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Yeah, it does. Fat kids and geeks don’t have laws explicitly discriminating against their rights.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Neither do gay kids. Teachers should stay neutral on all SEXUAL matters. What you want is teachers to follow your line on homosexuality, but what if you had a teacher in class who says homosexuality is wrong? If you give one teacher the right to support it; then you can’t deny another’s to not support it. You should understand this seeing as you think “equal rights for all.”

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:24 PM

But it’s also the reason why ONE religion can’t just write up laws for the sole purpose of furthering their religious beliefs.

BTW, this law doesn’t do that. It say NOTHING about writing up laws. It simple reiterates the 1st amendment.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM

It’s not about supporting the issue one way or the other.. it’s about standing up for a gay kid who is THIS CLOSE to committing suicide (and NINE already have in that state – NINE – )..

I mean, you think its your right to not stand up for homosexual teens when they’re being bullied? You think the whole homosexual aspect is wrong?

I think letting a gay kid die is wrong.

You all have blood on your hands.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

Feel free to read this if you’re so confident in your beliefs.

If you get to the end of the first page without questioning yourself, wow I just don’t know what to say.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

This page might mention it:
How ‘gay rights’ is being sold to America

TigerPaw on February 16, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Very concise. That article put into words things I’ve tried to say for years with far greater eloquence.

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 8:31 PM

It’s not about supporting the issue one way or the other.. it’s about standing up for a gay kid who is THIS CLOSE to committing suicide (and NINE already have in that state – NINE – )..

I mean, you think its your right to not stand up for homosexual teens when they’re being bullied? You think the whole homosexual aspect is wrong?

I think letting a gay kid die is wrong.

You all have blood on your hands.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:28 PM

I don’t know if you are gay, but you are seriously a drama queen. As I said before bullying is wrong, and teacher’s can punish bullying. It really doesn’t matter WHY the child is being abused. Teachers may think that overindulgence is food is bad, but they still have to intercede if a fat kid get bullied. It is the same damn principle.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Oh and speaking of rights, why do we need a law infringing on teacher’s first amendment rights to speak about homosexuality anyway?

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

Feel free to read this if you’re so confident in your beliefs.

If you get to the end of the first page without questioning yourself, wow I just don’t know what to say.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Nope doesn’t change my position at all. If the teachers did not intercede it was due to incompetence and not the public policy which I have actually read.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Oh and speaking of rights, why do we need a law infringing on teacher’s first amendment rights to speak about homosexuality anyway?

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

So you are okay if a teacher tell class that homosexuality is wrong? Glad you are under the name of the first amendment, but I don’t want a teacher saying that. I don’t want a teacher pushing ANY values on my children.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM

What benefit, exactly, does that public policy give us again?

I mean, aside from 9 gay suicides, which in your eyes may very well be a “benefit”, depending on how horrible a person you are.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

I know a landlord who won’t rent to cohabiting couples because she’s religiously opposed.

I rented a house to an unmarried gay couple not that long ago.

They paid on time, never made a fuss, and the place looked fabulous when they left.

Nice guys too.

I guess the landlord you mentioned was a Muslim or a Mormon.

CorporatePiggy on February 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Oh and speaking of rights, why do we need a law infringing on teacher’s first amendment rights to speak about homosexuality anyway?

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Because teachers are paid public servants.

Why do we need a law prohibiting police or firefighters from accepting gratuities?

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 8:38 PM

What benefit, exactly, does that public policy give us again?

It keeps teachers from making inappropriate comments on a controversial issue which may or may not gel with parental values.

I mean, aside from 9 gay suicides, which in your eyes may very well be a “benefit”, depending on how horrible a person you are.

Oh Good God, really if you can’t stop making idiotic statements than I am through discussing things with you.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM

So you are okay if a teacher tell class that homosexuality is wrong? Glad you are under the name of the first amendment, but I don’t want a teacher saying that. I don’t want a teacher pushing ANY values on my children.

No, im not okay with that. I’m also not okay with a teacher telling kids that global warming is bunk, or evolution is “just a theory”.

Teachers should teach. Teaching kids to be open-minded to the differences inherent in all of us is admirable. Teaching that “my religion says gays are bad” is close-minded and contributing to a climate of fear and hate that gays face every day.

You can play the equal rights card all you want, but there is no doubt in my mind that some people make a better use of their rights than others.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM

I mean, aside from 9 gay suicides, which in your eyes may very well be a “benefit”, depending on how horrible a person you are.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:37 PM

So not only are we quoting Rolling Stone, the MSNBC of the magazine world, suddenly, only homosexuals commit suicide?

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM

It keeps teachers from making inappropriate comments on a controversial issue which may or may not gel with parental values.

And what exactly is inappropriate about helping lgbt teens that need someone to talk to?

Oh right, god says its bad.

God also says judge not lest ye be judged. Might want to get on that.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

suddenly, only homosexuals commit suicide?

At a much higher rate. Check the stats, they’re in the article.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

God also says judge not lest ye be judged. Might want to get on that.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

I see we’re down to using that.

Might as well let all the murderers out of prison. I can’t tell you how many people I would murder if I could get away with it legally and morally.

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM

No, im not okay with that. I’m also not okay with a teacher telling kids that global warming is bunk, or evolution is “just a theory

Then you should be fine with this policy. This policy says if two kids talk about homosexuality- the teacher takes a neutral position. BTW, homosexuality is a moral issue. Global warming and evolution is science and evolution is just a theory.

Teaching that “my religion says gays are bad” is close-minded and contributing to a climate of fear and hate that gays face every day.

You can play the equal rights card all you want, but there is no doubt in my mind that some people make a better use of their rights than others

You said teachers have first amendment rights. I don’t think they do.. So it is your burden to explain why a teacher who is FOR homosexuality has those rights, and a teacher who isn’t doesn’t.

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM

BTW, homosexuality is a moral issue.

It’s a sexual orientation.

It’s not a moral issue for anyone but the religious.

It’s as much of a “moral issue” as your heterosexuality is.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

At a much higher rate. Check the stats, they’re in the article.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:41 PM

Of that, I have no doubt. There are numerous organizations they could reach out for help.
As for me, I could not care less. I have problems of my own. One of which is a country I live in being destroyed by a godless political and popular culture.

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

It’s a sexual orientation.

It’s not a moral issue for anyone but the religious.

It’s as much of a “moral issue” as your heterosexuality is.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:45 PM

My sexual behavior and preference is a moral issue…(facepalm)

melle1228 on February 16, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Saying your “against” homosexuality is like saying you’re “against” people with freckles. It’s just ignorance, justified by your adherence to an ancient book.

People – we have the internet now. We’re zapping protons into eachother at the speed of light to find the Higgs. Sending crap into space is a non-event.

Can anyone explain to me why people still follow the teachings of ancient mysticism? Seriously..

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

One of which is a country I live in being destroyed by a godless political and popular culture.

Sweeden would like to have a word – totally atheist and it seems they’re doing fine in the quality of life index. Saudi Arabia on the other hand.. not so much.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Sweeden would like to have a word – totally atheist and it seems they’re doing fine in the quality of life index. Saudi Arabia on the other hand.. not so much.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Sweden is ‘totally’ atheist and ‘doing fine’ on the quality of life index.

It’s obvious you just made that sh!t up, because neither of which is true, regardless of what nonsensical links you provide.

When someone starts making sh!t up, like a homosexual years ago trying to convince me that ‘heterosexuals spread it at a far greater rate’, our conversation is finished. Arguing with a fool or liar is pointless.

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Should be ‘heterosexuals were spreading AIDS at a far greater rate’.

Lanceman on February 16, 2012 at 8:56 PM

nah, i like a good argument but i’m not a sociopath.

sesquipedalian on February 16, 2012 at 6:00 PM

“You lie!”

You’re delusional if you honestly believe your self-assessment here. Leftists hate good debate – look at Media Matters for Amrica for the epitome of what I’m talking about. Or look at any other Leftists who aren’t as upset with Maxine Waters angrily calling Boehner and Cantor “demons” because of political bent as they were while they were blaming Sarah Palin and other Conservatives for creating the ‘toxic atmosphere’ which fueled Jared Loughner.

Just as it never gets old seeing Del Dolemonte post crr6′s genius F&F commentary, it’s always fun to remind Leftists that they would have no standards if they didn’t have their double standards. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2012 at 9:13 PM

It’s obvious you just made that sh!t up, because neither of which is true, regardless of what nonsensical links you provide.

Right, well why bother to check facts when you can just blindly believe whatever you like to believe. Ignorance is bliss, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

Sweeden = 9. Top 10. I think that qualifies as “fine”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

Several studies have found Sweden to be one of the most atheist countries in the world.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 9:16 PM

You’ll also notice in Norway, only a third believe in a God.. HDI ranking: 1.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Oh and as for Turkey.. 95% belief in a God.. most out of that euro poll.. they’re ranked 92nd.

You want to argue some more stats or can I stop?

triple on February 16, 2012 at 9:21 PM

On the “gay activist” side, or as I like to call them, reasonable human beings, kids in MN are committing suicide because of michelle bachmann’s crazy “gay neutrality” laws that disallow teaching staff from defending young girls when they are abused and harassed based on their sexual orientation.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Do you love it when gays out other gays? Gay activists who assault people who disagree with them, whether that abuse be physical or verbal, are extremely reasonable human beings, aren’t they?

Michelle Bachmann’s laws themselves made those kids commit suicide i.e the Devil made them do it, huh? Did those laws pull the trigger, shove the poison down their throats, string up the nooses, or physically carry out whichever other suicidal methods those kids might have chosen? Wow, those crafty laws are making us rethink our previous understanding how the universe works, aren’t they?

Bizarro No. 1 on February 16, 2012 at 9:43 PM

beings, kids in MN are committing suicide because of michelle bachmann’s crazy “gay neutrality” laws that disallow teaching staff from defending young girls when they are abused and harassed based on their sexual orientation.

triple on February 16, 2012 at 8:05 PM

Now come on. I’m pro-gay marriage and I think homophobia is every bit as disgusting and racism, anti-Semitism or any other brand of hate you can name but it’s not like Michele Bachmann’s positions are making all gay people kill themselves.

Bachmann is still married, isn’t she?

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I’m gay and don’t agree with most gay activists.

They can often be bully’s but of a different sort.

But so can Christians.

Both sides need to have a more open and honest dialogue.

But both sides try to use GOVERNMENT FORCE.

You don’t create genuine change when you use force.

TALK don’t SILENCE.

DEBATE don’t CONCEAL.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Now come on. I’m pro-gay marriage and I think homophobia is every bit as disgusting and racism, anti-Semitism or any other brand of hate you can name but it’s not like Michele Bachmann’s positions are making all gay people kill themselves.

Bachmann is still married, isn’t she?

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Bachmann is married to a gay man.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Bachmann is married to a gay man.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Exactly. And he hasn’t killed himself, has he?

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM

triple 8:41 pm

I think that is one of the many reasons homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until the APA made a political decision to reverse that.

avgjo on February 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM

For the most part, one can’t pick and choose their customers/clients.

You enter the public arena, you are beholden to a bunch of laws. You can’t just wave that off because you believe in whatever.

Moesart on February 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Bob Dylan said it all in the 60′s when he basically said that no matter who you are, what your status in life is, what your income is, where you live, etc. there will ALWAYS be people throwing stones at you.

One could discover the cure for all cancers and there would still be some group to find something to bee-eye-itch about it.

My advice: Ignore them. Don’t feed the trolls.

Weebork on February 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Tina,

The response of these gay activists is instructive. It’s a further indication that some gay advocates think the free exercise of religion — when it reveals a bias against gay behavior — should itself be construed as discrimination.

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Since your God decreed that homosexuals should be stoned to death, them opposing the exercise of religious freedom seems … understandable.

Even … self-defense.

Random on February 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Exactly. And he hasn’t killed himself, has he?

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 10:40 PM

Regardless of him, All I know is that it’s not healthy for gay men to force themselves to be with women sexually. But we have no idea about their relationship so I won’t judge them. I hate when people do that I don’t care what side they’re on.

But I can tell you that Church plays a bigger role in gay suicide more than anything else. But, you see, some people won’t care. I went to a church for years as a kid that told me I was going to hell because of my orientation – They did not separate between acts of sex versus the orientation, so it was all the same as far as the church attendee was concerned.

Even as a kid I knew I was gay, it was not that hard to figure out. But the combination of lust, damnation, sin, God, Satan and Hell can be a toxic brew of self-hate. I don’t know if non-gay people can truly ever understand how difficult it can be. When I was a kid I honestly thought I was cursed or damned too hell. This is why gay people, when we do finally accept that it won’t change – can become so militant. We don’t want to go back to that and don’t want anyone else too.

My main wish was that churches would talk more openly about homosexuality. Acknowledge it as an orientation and not a death sentence so young kids won’t feel so abandoned. They’d be better off living with one same-sex partner their entire life then killing themselves when they’re 16 because they’d rather act as though they’re damned. At it’s core, homosexuality has little to do with acts of sex. It’s just your orientation. So in many ways, even in a biblical sense homosexuality is not an issue at all. Just like heterosexuality it’s what you do with it! Or how many. But with the COMPLETE ignorance of the church with this issue they assume that if you’re gay then that means your sexually active. Which could not be further from the truth. I actually had a fundamentalist tell me – “If you’ve never had gay sex then you’re not gay”.

LOL. And then I realized how deep the problem went. No pun intended.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

The gay rights agenda and especially gay marriage is just another avenue for a mandate like with ObamaCare. If you are opposed to the health care mandate, then you need to oppose gay marriage, because they do not want tolerance, but to enforce acceptance. And we all know how tolerant the Left is.

Blue Collar Todd on February 16, 2012 at 11:44 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on February 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

I totally agree the church should change their stance on the issue; kids being driven to kill themselves because of who they are and something about themselves they can’t change ought to spur any decent person into action demanding reforms. My original intention in bringing up Bachmann’s husband along with the implication that he is a closeted homosexual (which, of course, he is) was more a jab at some of the less tolerant folks who might be Bachmann fans just to remind them of what she brings with her. If their relationship, whatever it is, works for them then I’m not going to judge them for it but that doesn’t stop an academic and intellectual curiosity as to how exactly it’s made to work.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

hotair is slowly being ruined by trolls…

ninjapirate on February 16, 2012 at 11:59 PM

hotair is slowly being ruined by trolls…

The alternative opinion thing totally sucks.

Random on February 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM

It’s all about using euphemisms, so that the reality will be made more palatable and, accordingly, more ACCEPTABLE.

When homosexuality becomes acceptable, it is no longer considered sin … therefore obliterating religious teachings to the contrary.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 16, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Poppycock.

sorry, amigo….but the dreaded “killer homos” that you fear have been around since we sprouted “naughty bits”.

I’m not going to get hung-up on semantics…..Gay / Homosexual…..po”tay”to po”tah”to.

Gay people don’t scare me (like they do you apparently) and if they prefer “Gay” that’s fine….it harms me exactly zip.

Tim_CA on February 16, 2012 at 5:42 PM

He’s right on this one, though. The left tries to use language to manipulate attitudes. While “gay” is a fairly innocuous example, it’s better to resist the game.

A great example is the word “homophobe,” applied to anyone that is critical of homosexuality. It’s meant to suggest that you must “hate” homosexuals because you are “afraid” of homosexuals, with the implication that you’re afraid of your own latent homosexuality.

And I note that you say, “Gay people don’t scare me (like they do you apparently.) It’s as if you’ve already adopted the same mindset that homophobe as a pejorative is based on.

There’s nothing particularly gay about homosexuality, and nothing particularly proud about it. Yet homosexuals like to use both words to apply to themselves, as in “Gay Pride” parades.

They can use whatever terms they want for themselves, obviously. That does not constitute an obligation for others to use the same politically correct language.

As far as that goes, even “homosexual” is somewhat of a euphemism, since it implies an assumed equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Even if you don’t consider homosexuality to be sinful, it’s still a sexual perversion followed by a small minority, that is manifestly NOT normal sexual behavior, nor lends itself to the production of children, and is accompanied by multiple health risks. There is no compelling reason to assume homosexuality is of equal value to normal sexuality.

The primary reason even opponents of homosexuality adopt the word “homosexual” is that it is at least descriptive, and that alternate words tend to be emotionally loaded.

tom on February 17, 2012 at 12:35 AM

Tina’s confusing getting what you always want and being allowed to discriminate against a minority with religious freedom, as usual.

Blue Collar Todd on February 16, 2012 at 11:44 PM

The world-ending gay agenda:

Not being killed in the street.
Buy milk.
Being allowed to marry the person you love.
Picking up the kids.

Those monsters.

mythicknight on February 17, 2012 at 12:38 AM

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I’m all for gay rights but I think your gaydar just might be picking up phantom signals. Remember that guy on the show Are you Being Served which was repeated for several decades on PBS? He was like that in real life too and he wasn’t gay at all. Straight guys can be camp just as there are burly ‘men’s men’ who turn out to be gay.

If you want folk to keep an open mind you need to keep an open mind yourself. The far left and far right have this in common… they love throwing out and imposing labels on people they know little about.

lexhamfox on February 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM

I totally agree the church should change their stance on the issue; kids being driven to kill themselves because of who they are and something about themselves they can’t change ought to spur any decent person into action demanding reforms. My original intention in bringing up Bachmann’s husband along with the implication that he is a closeted homosexual (which, of course, he is) was more a jab at some of the less tolerant folks who might be Bachmann fans just to remind them of what she brings with her. If their relationship, whatever it is, works for them then I’m not going to judge them for it but that doesn’t stop an academic and intellectual curiosity as to how exactly it’s made to work.

alchemist19 on February 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I don’t like when gay rights activists try to attack or corner people like the Bachman’s with gotcha questions. Not because they should not be asked these questions. They should, but you’re only going to drive them further against you when you try to attack or embarass them in public. It’s best to befriend them on something else and work your way in, in a positive rather than a negative manner.

Another good example of this is what that one gay guy did to Santorum’s name on Google. That’s just fighting crap with crap and makes him no better than Santorum. But I’m certainly NOT perfect! My biggest weakness is in dealing with the “war mongers” who seem to support any war, anywhere as long as our government says it’s to stop terrorism. That’s where I can become unhinged, lmao.

fatlibertarianinokc on February 17, 2012 at 12:49 AM

For the most part, one can’t pick and choose their customers/clients.

You enter the public arena, you are beholden to a bunch of laws. You can’t just wave that off because you believe in whatever.

Moesart on February 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Do you like how the Left has interpreted the Commerce Clause? How it values the 10th Amendment? Do you believe that gov’t has the moral right to tell insurance companies how their policies must be structured?

It’s assumed to be a given that everything the gov’t mandates for private business is not righteous, which is the one of the reasons the Founders emphasized strict limitations on gov’t. What are people supposed to do when gov’t believes in has the right/authority to insinuate itself into every business transaction on all levels to the degree that the gov’t is effectively controlling the private economy?

Here’s my problem with what you said: when gov’t mandates upon private business seems to be unreasonably obtrusive/intrusive, the American tradition has been to “err” on the side of private business over gov’t – this law’s point is the affirmation of this ideal, and you seem to be taking the gov’t’s i.e. the socialist side.

Bizarro No. 1 on February 17, 2012 at 12:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3