Quantcast

Comments about ‘Kansas House committee advances bill protecting religious rights’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 7 2014 6:40 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Yorkshire
City, Ut

Thanks Kansas.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

So it seems to me that they will run head first into the same problem the state of Utah has but even worse. How are you supposed to claim that the law was not animus when it specifically targets one group of people (LGBT)?f it is so important to protect religious people from public accommodation laws then why not have a law that states that a person can refuse services to anyone if providing such services violates their religious conscious. Of course that would then include the right to refuse services to people of other religions that they may think are cults or sinful, could get messy.

ChuckGG
Gaithersburg, MD

What a monumental waste of time. The first time a law like this is challenged in court, it will lose as it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with denial of civil rights and the public accommodation laws, already on the books for years.

How is this any different than similar proposed laws back in 1967 when inter-racial marriage was legalized? Back then some were claiming that God didn't want the "mixing of races" and serving such couples was against their religion.

It is discrimination, plain and simple, and ugly, to boot.

Sutton
Cedar City, UT

Just when I think Christians couldn't get any farther away from Christ... there goes treating others the way that you would yourself would want to be treated...

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

I have seen signs in businesses many times that state: management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"No gays served here, everyone else is welcome".

I dare any of you Christians to find any scripture in the Bible (or for Mormons, the BOM); where god says: "Thou shalt not do business with sinners". Good luck.

modernInvestor
SLC, UT

I'm all for protecting religious rights. I'm also for protecting the rights of no-religious individuals. The constitution offers protection to practice religion, but it also offer protection from religion.

I hope that Kansas maintains an equal balance of protection for all.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

Yes, thanks, Kansas. Let's get the litigation started and get a ruling on the books. In the public sphere, ALL must play by the same rules, no matter the nature of one's personal beliefs.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@Gildas;

Those signs are not carte blanche for the business to refuse service. They're reserved for cases where customers are obnoxious and bothering other customers, when they're inebriated, when they're high or something. They don't mean that the business will serve every customer but a specific subset of customers (LGBT, Black, Hispanic, Mormon, etc.). They may only be exercised within reason; the business, sign or no, may not violate public accommodation laws.

Maudine
SLC, UT

@gildas

You are right but there one thing to notice and another you need to know. First you will notice those signs are a general disclaimer and never single out groups or parts of our connunity. Second it is important to understand that posting such signs do not protect companies from being successfully suede if the person denied services can show the reason for denial was based on animus. The case of the cake maker that everyone likes to talk about being a good example.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments