Kansas Bill Allowing Refusal Of Service to Gay Couples Moves Forward


#1

nation.time.com/2014/02/11/kansas-bill-allowing-refusal-of-service-to-gay-couples-moves-forward/

“…State lawmakers engaged in heated debate over House Bill 2453, which would allow hotels, restaurants and stores in the state to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill would also allow government clerks to refuse to sign same-sex marriage licenses without threat of a lawsuit.”

I’m from Kansas, and I came across this article via a couple facebook friends who were pretty upset by it.

Is this a good move by Kansas, do you think? Here is the full text of the bill:

kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_00_0000.pdf

I haven’t analyzed this by any means, because I certainly don’t have the time to do it, but from a quick scan, it seems as if it might go too far. I think the only services that individuals/religious entities really need to withhold from, for example, openly gay couples, would be services that affirm their immoral lifestyle. I think the text of the bill seems a little harsh, or allows for too much withholding of services. I don’t know.

Your thoughts?


#2

My thoughts are that it is the most disgusting piece of legislation since segregation. Kansas can count on a lawsuit and swift end to this nonsense.


#3

Well, I don’t know about that.

I don’t know what I think about this particular bill, but I do most certainly think that if there is a way to pass a similar law to this without “judging”, “hating” (and all the other things it would be accused of doing, but not actually doing) and all that, then most definitely it should be done.

Interestingly enough, in my Moral Theology class right now, we’re discussing law, in the Summa Theologiae by Aquinas (I-II, q. 90-91) - about how law is an ordinance of reason. And if a law is not directed toward true common good (and in this context, common good is not simply economic or political), then it is an unjust law and therefore not a law at all.

So if a law were to be made about this, it would have to be ordered to the common good. The common good is to reflect the dignity of the human person, so such a law would also have to take this into account.

This is all jumbled in my mind, and I need to go to bed. But it’s all very interesting.


#4

I think it needs to be heavily read, analyzed and edited to make sure all parties involved have equal protection under the law.


#5

I think this is in direct contradiction to the CCC which bluntly states that homosexuals are to be treated with “respect and dignity”.

Denying shelter to individuals comes across to me as plain cruelty. I personally travel at times with another non homosexual male. Could not we be seen as a “gay couple” and have shelter denied to us as well?

Food, clothing and shelter are basic human needs after all. And not everyone can afford separate rooms. Besides I am disabled and need to be in the same room with another human. What if I fall again and can’t get up?

I think Kansas needs to re-think this seriously.


#6

If restaurants, stores, hotels can refuse service to gays based upon deeply held religious beliefs, they can refuse service to anyone, including Catholics, for the same reason. This legislation appears to be based on fear and prejudice alone and is a return to the days of Jim Crow. Only the victims are different.


#7

And the worst part is that, with this issue, people can refuse service purely out of their PERCEPTION of someone. So, as a previous poster said, you could show up at your hotel with a friend of the same sex you’re vacationing with and be thrown out of the hotel for “suspected homosexuality.”

This bill is pretty atrocious, and it’s hard to imagine how on Earth it even passed a committee in its current state.


#8

Would it be wrong to force a Muslim or a Jew to eat pork against their deeply held religious beliefs?


#9

In most instances, how would people even know they’re dealing with homosexual couples ? Unless of course, they’re really advertising the fact, in which case it doesn’t sound like a bad proposed law to me.


#10

Agreed.

Opposed for this reason and others.

It goes beyond protecting some Catholic’s right not to prepare a wedding cake. It covers every kind of accommodations and services.

And there seems to be no way to make sure the person’s religious beliefs are sincere. It seems like anyone can say they belong to some bogus church that teaches that their faith teaches they have to hate gays, and that they sincerely believe it.


#11

Yes. :frowning:

Sadly, I can see some people here endorsing this bill. In this current status, it’s borderline hate legislation.


#12

I’ve always been of the opinion that the government should not force people to think a certain way. I imagine this is very passé in our paternalistic government-knows-best era, but I stick to it. Good for Kansas.

If a certain business were to refuse me service for being Catholic, I would still support the right of private businesses to do as they please, and furthermore would not want to support that business anyway.


#13

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.