A law protecting the rights of vendors to refuse to provide services to same sex-couples in the context of marrying or celebrating their marriages was passed in the Kansas House and killed in the Kansas Senate. So it’s now moot, at least for Kansas, which doesn’t allow gay marriage anyway but was intent on protecting such vendors from lawsuits.
But the debate around the bill reveals something that those familiar with the left and gay marriage activists’ m.o. already knew: that gay marriage was only the start, and the intent was always to force people not only to allow it in the legal sense but to fully accept it in every sense, whatever their religious beliefs may be.
I’ve skimmed quite a few articles in the MSM about the bill, and all of them so far have had headlines and ledes that have mischaracterized it, always in the same way. A USA Today piece by Kirsten Powers is typical of the genre. Headlined “Jim Crow laws for gays and lesbians?”, it says that the Kansas statute is a “bill protecting the religious freedom of businesses and individuals to refuse services to same-sex couples.” No, not across the board; the bill only applies to a refusal of services around the celebration of same-sex marriages.
Powers’ column at least goes on to speak mostly of marriage, although she never clarifies that the bill is limited to those services. She also confuses the fact that Christians may indeed choose to help perform or service the marriage of gay people with the fact that they should not be compelled by law to do so.
Also typical is this one from CNN, which begins this way:
Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.
House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
No, not particularly those looking to tie the knot. Only those looking to tie the knot. That’s a big, big difference.
The following was the wording of the bill, which occurs way way down towards the end of the lengthy CNN article, down where most people will not be reading it:
No individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender:
“Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.”
Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can’t face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side’s legal fees.
There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.
If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.
It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.
This, of course, is not analogous to refusing to serve a person because of his/her race or even because of his/her sexual orientation, although those are the analogies from the same-sex marriage lobby.
Christian belief does posit marriage as being between a man and a woman, and has for millennia, as has Western society as a whole. Until a few years ago very few people questioned that.
I’ve written before that I personally have no problem with gay people marrying. But I have a huge problem with compelling Christians to be part of such celebrations or face lawsuits or the loss of their businesses. And I have a huge problem with propaganda that misrepresents what those who oppose gay marriage are suggesting and why. But such propaganda doesn’t surprise me in the least, nor should it surprise anyone else.
About a year ago I wrote, in a lengthy piece about gay marriage:
I’m not personally a follower of a religion or religious subdivision that still subscribes to such beliefs in the literal sense. But I respect religious people and think I understand the reasons for their objections to same sex marriage. I believe that…SSM [same-sex marriage] is merely one step in a long “progressive” march towards the eradication of religion and/or its demonization (a word that has an ironic twist in this context, does it not?).
I see absolutely no reason to change my mind.