Kansas Senate Leader Says Bill Condoning Discrimination Against Gays Unlikely to Pass

A Kansas bill allowing people, groups, and businesses to discriminate against gay couples based on religious beliefs which passed the House yesterday in a 72-49 vote looks unlikely to gain passage in the state Senate, President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, indicated in an email on Thursday.

WagleThe Wichita Eagle reports on Wagle's email:

“After an initial review, I’ve grown concerned about the practical impact of the bill,” Wagle said in an e-mailed statement. The bill would allow public and private employees alike to refuse service based on religious views of marriage.

“A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage, protect religious institutions, and protect individuals from being forced to violate their personal moral values,” Wagle said. “However, my members also don’t condone discrimination.

“If we cannot find ample common ground to ease legitimate concerns, I believe a majority of my caucus will not support the bill."

Comments

  1. RK says

    The reality will be that it will hurt their business climate. What business wants to be associated with this. Imagine the nightmare for HR departments who have specific guidelines for anti-discrimmination and the problems it will cause businesses in terms of customer service. Once an employee refuses service to a gay person, the business will suffer a backlash. I cannot imagine any national corporation will want to be associated with this. These Republicans are stupid as dirt with no common sense. They are all for business yet here the go destroying the business climate because of their lame religious extremism.

  2. Craig says

    That and the fact that it would last 5 seconds before a federal judge started laughing out of court.

    Today in Arizona, the legislature, who think somehow that Kansas is a state to mimic, is moving to make county sheriffs the chief legal authority in the state, imposes all kinds of penalties on district attorneys bowing to federal authority, and would require federal law enforcement to have written permission to essentially breathe in this state.

    The Greenlee county sheriff (population diddly squat) said on NPR “Who is going to hold them (the feds) in check!?”

    Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with investigating their beloved Sheriff Joe for human rights violations, right? I think these nuts are in for a genuine reality check on federal authority over county sheriffs. :)

    BTW, we also have one of these idiotic discrimination laws advancing. It too will last mere seconds in federal court. None of our Republican legislators have ever heard of state of federal constitutions.

  3. woodroad34d says

    She should also have mentioned that religion isn’t the only right that people enjoy in this country…we also have the right to not recognize religion and enjoy a pursuit of our own happiness that doesn’t, in anyway, interfere with your superstitions. Besides, if that bill WERE to pass, what’s to stop someone from saying it’s against their beliefs to do business with a Christian, Jew, Muslim or straight…the divisiveness that straights engender proves they have no love, sense of real family or community. Conservatives are anathema to the human race–they are the real weeds in the garden desperately trying to be roses.

  4. JamesInCA says

    Or perhaps her “legitimate concerns” have to do with someone pointing out to her that the law could easily be turned upon Christians: “Oh, you’re living together in sin? No lunch for you!” “You’re divorced?” “You weren’t married in the Temple?” “You white people came, stole our land, and are reproducing all over it?” And on and on and on….

  5. Merv says

    The bill is unbelievably broad. Some of it was definitely intentional, but I’m not sure if some wasn’t accidental. Some examples:

    – It applies to government employees, not just private employees.

    – It applies not just to religious objections about gay marriage, but any “religious beliefs… regarding sex and gender”. That could encompass almost anything.

    – It allows not just denying services related to celebrating marriage (although those are mentioned), but to “any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, …”. There are no exceptions even for emergency services such as fire and police!

    – If a government employee denies services, the government is required to find another employee to provide the services only if “it can be done without undue hardship”. So, government services can be denied indefinitely.

  6. johnny says

    This bill would have effectively rendered anyone gay as actually less than a 2nd class citizen, it would have made gay people nearly invisible.

    The right hates the fact that we dare exist.

  7. Jasmine says

    The fact that this bill successfully went through the Kansas House speaks volumes about how vile and bigoted the modern GOP has become.

    Blech. The bill would have allowed hospitals to refuse treatment of gay couples or encouraged police officers from rendering assistance to gays.

    The bill is just a new form of Jim Crow.

    I can’t wait for the resident gay Republican sycophants to justify this kind of legislation. I’m sure they’ll say it make sense financially to their pocketbooks…somehow. After all, money and their own personal well-being are the only things that count to gay Republicans.

  8. Jake says

    OK. Where are the gay Republicans supporting their fellow Republicans? Come on. Please tell us non-Republican gays how we’re so hateful for not giving conservatives a chance.

    Waiting…..

    P.S.

    Screw you.

  9. Jake says

    OK. Where are the gay Republicans supporting their fellow Republicans? Come on. Please tell us non-Republican gays how we’re so hateful for not giving conservatives a chance.

    Waiting…..

    P.S.

    Screw you.

  10. Micheal says

    You know, I wonder if this works both ways….I can refuse services to anyone who is white, straight, or married because of MY religious beliefs….Let’s just bring civilization to a grinding halt because NO ONE likes ANY ONE….and let’s call it religious freedom!!

  11. Ernie says

    Weren’t laws like this addressed by the supreme court in Romer vs Evans (1992)? This ruling struck down CO’s state constitutional amendment which denied gay people the right of any protection or recourse against discrimination. Seems like this ruling would apply here to this KS law.

Leave A Reply