WTF Kansas? I really hope there's more to this story....

[video=youtube;Cn8nEMwDhmY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8nEMwDhmY[/video]
Screw Russia. Kansas just went into Jim Crow overdrive. Please tell me there's more to this story than Cenk is saying. Tell me Kansas businesses, both big and small, government run or not, can now put up "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs in there window. Tell me that's not true. Tell me that's a hoax.

 

I heard of this. I almost can't believe it.

You have to think this also opens the doors for people to again begin discriminating against other races as well. Maybe it violates someone's religious beliefs to help someone who is not of the same faith as them? There you go...

 

***sigh** No it is real. Oddly enough I have not met a Kansan that agrees with it yet

 

It is sad to see but let's be real. All this has accomplished is providing a truly wonderful case will be heading to the Supreme Court against discrimination,Lao thank you Kansas for providing another prime opportunity to abolish another hateful law.

 

I can't watch the video at the moment, but...

It's stupid, it's backwards, it's bad business, it's ridiculous.... but I support private business owner's ability to allow/deny access to his property based on any criteria he sees fit, and I oppose any government force on the matter. If I wanted to post a 'NO GAYS' sign in my business and government told me I couldn't, I'd post a 'NOT GAY FRIENDLY' sign instead. If they made me take that down, I'd post a sign that said 'GAYS WELCOME, BUT YOU WON'T LIKE WHAT YOU FIND HERE'. The goal being that gay folks can make informed decisions on where to shop.

 

The saddest part is we all know how this will pan out. They will go to court via the 1965 Civil Rights act and use the protected classes legislation to shred it

- - - Updated - - -

Trouble is State government departments can refuse service - So the options for an informed choice are limited

 

I was careful to limit my support to 'private business[es]'. Government should never, ever be allowed to discriminate against is citizens based on sexual orientation.

 

And neither should any business open to the public.

 

Privately owned businesses should be able to cater to whomever they want, imo. It's MY property, it's MY business, and I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone based on criteria I define. If you don't like it, you can (and should) take your business elsewhere.

This is the same reason I am against no-smoking laws for provate business. A good friend of mine was put out of business when his cigar bar was made unlawful by recent no-smoking legislation in NC.

I am firmly in favor of signage laws to inform the public of a business's policy so they can make informed decisions.

 

Sorry, but that's simply not true. You need to brush up on the law. Are you in favor of signs that say "whites only" too?

Also, I guess lots of people in Kansas disagree with you, including religious leaders and Kansas Senate Republicans:

The bill is dead.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014...vices-stalls/UPI-69501392447930/?spt=rln&or=1

 

Sorry you misunderstood. I did not suggest it was the law, I suggested it should not be government who decides who private business owners must do business with. I'm not in favor of 'Whites Only' or 'No Gays' signs, but I am in favor of private businesses to choose who they want to do business with, and to make that choice based on any criteria they feel is good for their business. And I feel they should be required to inform the public at their entrance of any such restrictions. For instance, 'No Smoking' signs would suffice rather than legislation. Almost 100% of smokers would voluntarily comply with a simple No Smoking sign.

Take my friend's business, for instance. He ran a very successful cigar bar for decades. ALL his customers and employees were smokers. In one day, government's overreach put him out of business by passing a law that says that business cannot allow smoking in their building. How is this good for anyone?

 

So wait- you're going to compare a public health risk to a human being?

These two thing are in no way remotely comparable.

 

I made no such comparison. Private property owners should be able to reserve the right to decide who can come onto their property, and what those people are allowed to do there without government interference. If I want to run a 'Gays Only' hair salon on my property, I should be able to do it. If I want to run a Left Handed golf club store on my property, I should be able to do it. Government should treat everyone equally, private citizens should not have to.

 

No offense but nobody takes the Young Turks seriously.... you should have provided better support for your thread.

That said... the bill, which will never survive, was misrepresented:

Supporters said their intent was to prevent florists, bakers and photographers from being punished for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings, keep churches from having to provide space or clergy for such ceremonies and keep religiously affiliated adoption agencies from being forced to place children with gay couples.
Critics said the bill was much broader than advertised and would encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.

But the discrimination your silly video portrays, claiming a fireman will make you burn in your gay house if it's on fire, is stupid.

It's just more of the extreme hyperbole we've all come to expect.
Not just from Young Turks, but from minority whiners in general.

 

Mistake #1: Trying to explain yourself.

Mistake #2: Thinking they will ever understand what you actually said, compared to what they twist it into.

Mistake #3: Forget it... you're a homophobe!!!!


I get what you're saying, and agree, and won't twist it into other things like he always does, and just tried with you.
Businesses should be able to refuse business for any stated reason, as long as it is presented on their front door so as not to wast anyone's time.

I think it sucks that a gay business is forced to provide service to a man they just saw on the news who was acquitted, based on a technicality, for brutally beating a gay couple while screaming "F@GS!" at them.

As just one of many examples.

 

So, one more time- you're OK with "whites only" signs in business windows too? Because that sounds like what you're saying.

And BTW, if you want to do what you're saying, you can- but you have to be a private club (you do understand this exists, right?). But if you have a public business license, you have to serve the public, because you have agreed to do so when getting said license.

 

The "Rand Paul" Defense....."I'm not in favor of racism or bigotry....just the freedom of a business to be subtlely or even overtly racist or bigoted."

Brave people fought THAT kind of thinking 60 years ago in Greensboro, NC and elsewhere-

 

Then perhaps you should fund your own police and fire department, that you all take advantage of in time of need. You know, those publicly funded groups.

 

You do not have the right to do business. This is a fundamental mistake made by many. I can actually respect a principled stand against government intrusion in your business decisions, but I don't think it is based upon anything real. The right of government to regulate business is absolute. It is built right into the Constitution of your country. You do not have "the right" to just open a business and start selling. You need to be inspected. You need a sales tax number. You need to adhere to various safety and accessibility regulations. Now, you can argue that you would prefer if you did have that right, but just be aware that it has never actually existed.

You could make a freedom of association argument here... and if that is the case, I encourage you to become a private club that serves members only, in which case you will be exempt from the various anti-discrimination laws that apply to businesses serving the public, as is authorized by the Constitution.

 

This is exactly correct. I do not understand where these notions come from that one can just open a business and there are no rules.

 

I do not support racism or bigotry, however I support YOUR right to be a racist or bigot (or gay, or whatever) if YOU want to be, as long as you do so in the privacy of your own home or business. I do not fool myself into believing that I can legislate your racism and bigotry out of you. You will pay your community's price for your overt racism and bigotry, as you should. I find it amusing how people will deal these race cards so freely when nothing I am talking about has anything to do with race. It's all about freedom to conduct your business how you see fit, and suffer the consequences (or reap the rewards) based on those decisions. Government has no place there, (just as it has no place in abortion, or marriage), and ends up doing more harm than good.

 

Your attempt to paint me as a racist is noted. I'll not play along, because its not true. I merely believe that people should be able to conduct their business as they see fit without government intervention as long as they do not harm others. Similarly, I believe that gay folks should be able to live their lives as they see fit, without government meddling. And I believe government should treat ALL of them equally and support their freedoms rather than limit them.

 

The problem you are encouraging here, along with Lee and others, is ttaking an innocent comment like "you should be able to" to mean "according to law you can!". When no one has said that.

A baker should be able to tell a gay couple they don't support homosexuality and not be forced to make them a wedding cake. Which we all saw in the news over and over how such businesses receive death threats and end up closing down.

But the word people intentionally ignore is "should".

They change it to "are" and then argue about it... because they live to argue.

 

I can already legally post a sign that says "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service", and I can enforce that by tossing shirtless patrons out of my establishment. If they do not voluntarily leave, I can call the police and have them ejected. I can have them charged with trespassing if I want to. I will suffer the loss of shirtless revenue, and bad word-of-mouth from the shirtless advocacy groups. If I am OK with that, so be it. That's all I am talking about. The baiters here are attempting to paint me as a racist, because that's the only tool in their box. I get it, its an old tired ploy, but haters gonna hate.

Now for sure, with a freedom such as this, there will be a few backwards places that will post 'No Gays' signs. I ask, seriously, wouldn't a gay person like to know this before he walks into such a place? Would they prefer that government twist the arm of the proprietor and force them to serve gays? Why would a gay person want to support such a business?

 

I don't understand how these people have the nerve to equate homosexuality to the struggles of black Americans.

It's insulting to them, and Rosa Parks would be the first to tell them so.

Exactly.