Time to change the signs
In all 50 of the states, when you cross the border and enter one of them, there's a sign there to welcome to. Last time I drove across the U. S., I took photos of them. I remember one sign that had musical notes on it.
In Kansas, legislators are pushing a bill that would allow discrimination against same-sex couples by both private businesses and by individual government employees. If this bill becomes law, Kansas needs to change its signs at the various borders. "Welcome to Kansas where it is still pre-1964. Where the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 never became law. Oh, and if you're in a same-sex relationship, turn around. You are not welcome here."
This legislation, pandering to bigoted religious zealots and Tea Party members (there is definitely crossover between those two groups), has no chance of surviving a challenge to its constitutionality. That's well and good, but the message of hatred and intolerance it sends to homosexuals is abhorrent.
While I'm usually loathe to write something that would allow me to be accused of proving the validity of Godwin's Law, this time the comparison is valid. Will Kansas follow the lead of the Nazis in the era of Hitler and require same-sex couples to wear a rainbow on their clothing at all times, so they can be more easily identified? What is to stop homosexuals from creating their own religion, a faith that doesn't allow them to serve heterosexuals? Would they be able to engage in the same type of discrimination?
As this legislation is written, a police officer responding to a domestic dispute between a same-sex couple would have the right to refuse to provide "service" to them. He or she wouldn't have to mediate or even get involved. Public safety could be at risk. A detective investigating a crime against a homosexual could choose to claim "religious freedom" and not work the case. Fire department personnel could refuse to put out a fire in the home of a same-sex couple.
The right to freedom of religion as set forth in our Constitution, and as interpreted by the courts, generally allows that freedom to be absolute right up to the point where the exercise of that religion is violating someone else's rights. The United States Supreme Court upheld a decision by the California Supreme Court in Smith v Fair Employment and Housing Commission that a property owner cannot refuse to rent to an unmarried couple, even if their unmarried status is against the religious beliefs of that property owner. Now while that decision is based on state law, rather than federal law, and only a few states have such a law, I suspect this decision indicates that the USSC isn't going to let the Kansas law stand.
Perhaps the signs at the borders of Kansas should include this statement, "Welcome to Kansas, the first state to declare that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' is no longer valid."
In Kansas, legislators are pushing a bill that would allow discrimination against same-sex couples by both private businesses and by individual government employees. If this bill becomes law, Kansas needs to change its signs at the various borders. "Welcome to Kansas where it is still pre-1964. Where the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 never became law. Oh, and if you're in a same-sex relationship, turn around. You are not welcome here."
This legislation, pandering to bigoted religious zealots and Tea Party members (there is definitely crossover between those two groups), has no chance of surviving a challenge to its constitutionality. That's well and good, but the message of hatred and intolerance it sends to homosexuals is abhorrent.
While I'm usually loathe to write something that would allow me to be accused of proving the validity of Godwin's Law, this time the comparison is valid. Will Kansas follow the lead of the Nazis in the era of Hitler and require same-sex couples to wear a rainbow on their clothing at all times, so they can be more easily identified? What is to stop homosexuals from creating their own religion, a faith that doesn't allow them to serve heterosexuals? Would they be able to engage in the same type of discrimination?
As this legislation is written, a police officer responding to a domestic dispute between a same-sex couple would have the right to refuse to provide "service" to them. He or she wouldn't have to mediate or even get involved. Public safety could be at risk. A detective investigating a crime against a homosexual could choose to claim "religious freedom" and not work the case. Fire department personnel could refuse to put out a fire in the home of a same-sex couple.
The right to freedom of religion as set forth in our Constitution, and as interpreted by the courts, generally allows that freedom to be absolute right up to the point where the exercise of that religion is violating someone else's rights. The United States Supreme Court upheld a decision by the California Supreme Court in Smith v Fair Employment and Housing Commission that a property owner cannot refuse to rent to an unmarried couple, even if their unmarried status is against the religious beliefs of that property owner. Now while that decision is based on state law, rather than federal law, and only a few states have such a law, I suspect this decision indicates that the USSC isn't going to let the Kansas law stand.
Perhaps the signs at the borders of Kansas should include this statement, "Welcome to Kansas, the first state to declare that 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.' is no longer valid."
posted by me at 7:19 AM
<< Home