No Faggots
Feb18
I’m not sure if y’all are aware of the absolute bullshittery that’s been going down in Kansas…
Wait, sorry, can’t say “going down,” since that’s not biblically allowed. “Going on?”
What Kansas just introduced as legislation is wrong on so many levels, I dunno where to begin. I really don’t. You’d think a state like Kansas would try to WELCOME new residents, regardless of race, sexual alignment, religion, etc, since NOBODY FUCKING LIVES IN KANSAS, but instead… this?
Wow.
An oldie but goodie, apparently still relevant 12+ years later:
Honestly, when bigotry is this level of un-adulterated stupid, I can only find myself trying desperately to not laugh in their faces. Then failing miserably.
I like Mick’s idea.
The best way to responded to homophobia is with shotguns.
I think some second amendment needs to be unleashed on that state government.
You guys are going to need a lot of shotguns…..
To be fair, he’s more responding to Tom being behind the counter and acting like he owns the place.
And being a complete douche bag 🙂
Well, the good news is, apparently some Repubs in the Kansas Senate are not COMPLETE fuck-tards, and the bill is, for all intents and purposes, dead.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/17/kansas_anti_gay_bill_republican_senators_admit_it_s_discrimination_kill.html?wpisrc=burger_bar
I particularly like the line about Senate members saying “‘They support traditional marriage,’ Wagle noted, ‘however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.'” Because denying gays the right to marry isn’t discrimination.
But hey, baby steps. At least Kansas isn’t going full-tilt “Jim Crow” on homosexuality as planned.
The Kansas bill is not nearly as bad as has been reported. All it really does is provide protection for businesses like the bakery owner who was fined for not making a cake for a same sex marriage. It does not, as has been reported, allow EMS or police to ignore helpless gays as they lay bleeding, allow an employer to fire an emplyee for simply being gay, or even allow a business not to serve a homosexual simply for being a homosexual. Sorry, but this is not a resurrection of Jim Crow laws. All it does is preserve the right of an individual or corporation to choose in which business to engage.
I’m not endorsing private-sector discrimination, but the state forcing the morality of acceptance is just as bad as the state forcing the morality of heterosexuality. Let the market handle it. If Manna form Heaven Bakery, LLC. decides to refuse to do business with a gay couple, spread the word and let as many people as possible refuse to do business with Manna from Heaven.
The one part of the bill that is a problem is that is could allow for a delay in getting a marriage license, or it’s equivilent under Kansas law, to a same sex couple. That needs to be fixed, but excepting that, there is nothing in this bill that allows for State discrimination.
Wow, just read the article linked above. Holy selective quoting!
Here’s the actual bill, in full.
Here’s the bakery case I referenced, though apparently the baker wasn’t fined, but threatedned with fines if he didn’t serve the couple.
Which is not to say that the authors of the bill weren’t cackling gleefully at finally getting to ban the gays. And their constituents should certainly look into that, but at least they accidentally stumbled onto something close to good.
Add a clause that makes clear that the bill in no way allows any form of discrimination or unequal treatment on the part of the state, and I’m all for it. Any reduction of the state is OK in my book.
Mmmm…from my reading of the bill, it does allow any service to disallow services to gay people. (http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf):
“(d) If an individual employed by a governmental entity or other non-
religious entity invokes any of the protections provided by section 1, and
amendments thereto, as a basis for declining to provide a lawful service
that is otherwise consistent with the entity’s duties or policies, the
individual’s employer
, in directing the performance of such service,
shall either promptly provide another employee to provide such service, or
shall otherwise ensure that the requested service is provided, if it can be
done without undue hardship to the employer.”
“911? Help! I’ve been shot!”
“You gay?”
“Yes!”
“Sorry, against my beliefs. I’ll try and find someone else to help you out.”
You missed this bit:
Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by
an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in
section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in:
(1) A civil claim or cause of action under state or local law based
upon such refusal; or
(2) an action by any governmental entity to penalize, withhold
benefits from, discriminate against or otherwise disadvantage any
protected individual or religious entity, under any state or local law
Won’t stand up to a SCOTUS Challenge..
The state would actually have to Secede from the Union to Amend the States Constitution to revoke blanket protect by the State and Federal Constitutions 1st Amendment protections.
You’re missing the part, section 1a, where this only applies to marriages or celebrations of marriages. That’s the key phrase that everyone seems to be ignoring. So at very worst it’s:
“Hello, clerk of courts, can I get a marriage license?”
“You gay?”
“Yeah…”
“We’ll get to it as soon as somebody doesn’t object to doing it and isn’t otherwise occupied… sometime next year…”
Fair point, I was thinking the bill did enable all discrimination. Still, it would anyone from a baker (as you mention) to an innkeeper/hotel to say “you’re gay; I don’t want to serve you.” Crappy bill, crappy way of thinking.
But it wouldn’t! It only applies to business or services performed in relation to marriage or marriage celebrations etc. So it couldn’t be “you’re gay, so no business” it could only be “I don’t want to be involved in your gay wedding, go on down the road.”
That being said, as long as there’s no discrimination on the part of the state, why would it be so bad for private businesses to be able to turn away customers at will? Whether it’s for being gay, or sagging drawers, or political beliefs, why not let the market handle it, rather than the government?
Point of Fact…
Religion has NO PLACE in Politics. PERIOD, End of Discussion. I don’t care if someone doesn’t Like someone because they might just happen to be of the GLBT persuasion.
I actually Pity people that Spout “The Good Book” but can’t actually live by it’s message of Love and Tolerance.
GLBT were Born that way…as the line from the song goes. You can wake up one day and wonder what it would be like to ‘go the other direction” but you don’t suddenly change “Just Because.” You’re either wired as Straight or you are Wired one of the Other.
IF that Bill were to be Passed and Signed, I’d line up to file a Civil Rights Lawsuit against the Governor and Legislature…and I don’t live in that backward fucktard state.
I would have thought that Tom would have a bigger reaction to a shotgun in his face.
I get the feeling that is a standard reaction to Tomisms.
Sometimes hard to tell in a 2-D environment, but it looked to me as though Mike had the shotgun at the ready, not aimed at Tom.
“Never cover anything with the muzzle you don’t wish to destroy,” and all that.
If I were Mick, that Muzzle would be on Tom… Just sayin
Beanbag rounds Mick, that is exactly the time they were invented for.
I wouldn’t want to test that one in court! Pepper spray or taser if you want to go non-lethal, not a firearm….
Teöö that to the police.
Tell*
Shouldn’t Tom be wearing a wide-brimmed hat with corks dangling from strings around the edges?
I thought tea bags were in this season…
Tea bags and bigotry under the guise of religious freedom.
NO POOFTAHS
Thankfully the Kansas Senate seems to have their heads where they should be on this one. http://www.ibtimes.com/kansas-bill-legalize-anti-gay-discrimination-unlikely-pass-state-senate-1556196
Herein Tennessee they’re pushing thru a law to allow marriage related businesses (bakeries, flower shops, that kind of thing) to refuse gays. Bunch of crap, but I say, why would you want to give your business to people like that anyways?
We’ve seen it happen in the past, and they still think it’s a good idea? yeesh.
It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that something like this would come from Kansas. After all, Kansas is home to Feed Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church.
That said, even if the bill were to clear both state houses and be signed into law by the governor, it would likely never actually be implemented. The second the governor signed it there would be emergency filings at the state and federal courts to block it, and ultimately it would end up shot down by the courts for exactly the same reasons as the Jim Crow laws it seeks to emulate.
Video made me laugh out loud. Just sayin’. Not that I’ll be adding it to a playlist anytime soon or anything, but…
Private property rights and individual freedom are more important than making sure people aren’t being assholes. We have no remedy to a government that gets in its head that it can dictate to a private individual what he may or may not do with his business and property. We have a ready remedy for a business owner who is an asshole. Just don’t do business with them. Financial strain will either change their mind or put them out of business. Problem solved.
I’m just pointing out that we may want to choose the lesser of two evils here.
There’s not any way to upvote you, so please accept this reply as a proverbial “Hell yeah” in your general direction.
Despite how bad this law might *seem*, when spun as a “vote for bigotry”, what it really is, in my opinion, is a vote *against* the continued abuses of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and I will vote for that every time.
Aside from that, I’d much rather know who the bigots are so that I can boycott them than have the government insist they pretend not to be bigots, lest I accidentally give them money.
Actually we do.
Look at the American Revolution for an Example.
How does Tom not get on a banned customer list?
I live in Kansas and was livid (as a bisexual) that this bill was even trying to pass.
Thankfully, the State Senate brought it down!
I’m sorry, but the libertarian in me says that any private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. Let the free market sort it out. Public institutions are another matter.
Right, because “let the market sort it out” worked SO FUCKING WELL IN THE JIM CROW SOUTH.
@Snap: I’d partially agree with that. Certainly, I agree that any individual or group of individuals doing business as themselves and at their own risk (subject to whatever contractual limitations on risk they may succeed in writing into their contracts with other parties, of course) should be free to do what they want with their own property. But when it comes to corporations I draw the line – a corporation has no natural existence of its own, but is a creature of the state, and the state has not only the right but the duty to regulate the behavior of its creatures.
I cannot blame Mick for aiming that shotgun right at Tom’s head.
On the article: I am all for allowing people to be stupid. And make no mistake, in the vast majority of cases, refusing to serve or employ people with same-sex attraction is rocks-in-the-head stupid. Unjust discrimination is unsupportable. I also fully support people’s right to not provide settings for homosexual acts, or celebrations thereof, because in addition to economically shooting yourself in the foot, that is direct material cooperation in sin.
Conversely, I think people who object have every right to organize boycotts and otherwise persuade all people never to patronize, work for, or sell to such a business ever again. But not to sue them or demand that they be legally penalized and fined out of business, just because they don’t want to enter into contracts with somebody.
Remember, “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
“I also fully support people’s right to not provide settings for homosexual acts, or celebrations thereof, because in addition to economically shooting yourself in the foot, that is direct material cooperation in sin.”
Economically shooting yourself in the foot? How is renting a hall for a gay marriage ‘economically shooting yourself in the foot?’ or did you mean that it is understandable due to material cooperation in sin, although not necessarily sound business (and I have fallen prey to an ambiguous comma)?
Ambiguous comma. Refusing to serve people for specious reasons, such as their skin color or sexual preferences, is economically shooting yourself in the foot. Providing a venue for homosexual acts (e.g., a hotel room) or their celebration (e.g., a chapel for a same-sex marriage or hall for the reception) is material cooperation in sin.
lmao, I’m here dying over the Eric Schwartz clip… it is so f’in difficult to type because I’m laughing so damn hard….
Tom’s shirt apparently swings both ways, even if he doesn’t… the button jumps to the “wrong” side, making the shirt a ladies’ blouse in the second panel.
(Yeah, it’s a nitpick. Easy detail to miss if you mirror the artwork to save a few brushstrokes. I wouldn’t even bring it up if it didn’t play into Tom’s narrow mindset!)
*GASP OMG!!* You’re RIGHT! It DOES!!
Well, Arizona is trying to Join Kansas. Apparently our state legislature wants to ban gay money. The more and more Reich wing attacks homosexuals the more I tend to hate the Reich Wing. I do enjoy knowing the identities of the bigots, but laws also make them feel entitled to their bigotry.
In case anyone is keeping score, I am hetero and kind of grossed out by gay sex but even more appalled by stupidity. I like the keep your Jesus off my dick. There needs to be a keep your Jesus off my pussy.