1. Gerry says

    TYT is one of the few remaining news outlets that tell it like it is. If you want educated about current issues and are tired of propaganda and spin of the corporate media, support the TYT Army.

  2. SpaceCadet says

    Yes, we must remain vigilant against this form of legal gay-bashing lest we slide backwards into the Dark Ages like Russia.

  3. rroberts says

    Wow! Probably because I’m neither young nor Turkish, I never heard of this guy Cenk Uygur. But he gets my vote. Thank you Mr. Uygur for your fair-minded viewpoint.

  4. Jim says

    Denounce these bills by all means. But let’s not panic here. These proposed bills purportedly allow religious discrimination against gays in various states. Religion-oriented discrimination against anybody is flatly illegal in the United States and violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law trumps state law. If any of these states actually enact such a law, it will die a quick and merciless death in federal court. Tea Bagger neo-confederate Republican political demagoguery may work at election time but it fails totally in federal court where law alone rules.

  5. Geoff says

    Kansas has become Westboro Baptist Church. Businesses that want to grow, stay viable and dynamic should leave Kansas immediately. Let’s see how long Kansas survives stewing in its own juices…in a financial/cultural vacuum. Forward, at light speed, into the past.

  6. john patrick says

    Even if they pass such laws, they won’t stand in the courts. Romer v. Evans in Colorado already gave the precedent for that.

  7. Merv says

    @Jim – Discrimination based on sexual orientation is not covered by any federal anti-discrimination law, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If it were, we wouldn’t have been trying for the last 35 years to pass ENDA, which only covers employment discrimination.

    Anti-gay discrimination is perfectly legal already in Kansas and in most other states. This proposed law only makes it explicit. It also provides individual government employees the ability to discriminate without fear of being fired.

  8. Armando says

    It’s not just shocking as a gay person, it’s outrageous as a tax payer. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I’m paying for those services!

  9. Robert Rhea says

    One important note on the Photographer Case, The Bakeries, and the Various B&B cases. These cases were based on STATE Non-Discrimination laws. They were not strictly gay rights laws. The businesses in question were violating a law to require them to treat all people equally.

  10. says

    I first heard about the bills from TYT which is where I get most of my news from nowadays. I love how they just tell it like it is.

  11. Howard B says

    At first blush you would think this is clearly unconstitutional, but if you step back and think about it, these laws are pitting two fundamental provisions of the constitution against each other; the free exercise of religion and equal protection under the law. It will be interesting to hear what SCOTUS has to say about this, because if these pass they will certainly be fast tracked to the supreme court.

  12. Chrislam says

    Not really. The government isn’t forcing the feaux Christians to engage in homosexual acts against their beliefs.

    Nowhere does the Bible talk about gay marriage nor say you can’t bake a cake for a gay couple.

    Bigots are just using the Bible (incorrectly) to practice their hate.

  13. says

    The mask is off.
    Hate groups have overplayed their hands in a brazen but stupid desperation play since federal courts are unanimously ruling that denying same sex marriage is unconstitutional. Desperation reveals the true animosity hidden behind a ‘religious liberty’ mantra.
    Just as we’ve said all along.

    More than anything else these attempts to legalize discrimination stand as evidence for Circuit Courts and eventually SCOTUS to see the blatant discrimination LGBT citizens have to face and will guide them in establishing the appropriate level of scrutiny. In the meantime real people face potentially devastating harm while these dehumanizing laws are challenged.

    These laws are state sponsored discrimination in the public service arena and have nothing to do with practice of religion. In order for them to be valid the state would have to show (just like in marriage discrimination) a substantial rationale for their purpose. They are clearly in violation of equal protection (state & federal) and I doubt that any state court much less federal would see otherwise.

    This has been looming for a while. Is the US going to be a theocracy or a constitutional republic?

  14. Macmantoo says

    Reminds me of the South during the fifties and sixties. What a shame there are so many bigots in this world.

  15. says

    I like Cenk, but he seems to have some of his facts off. It sounded like he said that firing someone for their sexual orientation was against “like 18 federal laws.” As those who follow this blog closely or read HRC’s junk mail know, it is perfectly legal under federal law to fire someone for being gay.

    Which gets us to an important fact about the Kansas law. The Kansas law, if passed (which thankfully it looks like it won’t), will not make refusing to serve a gay person at your restaurant legal in Kansas. Because it is already legal in Kansas, and in most other states.

    I haven’t gone and looked at all the statutes, but I’m guessing that only those states that added SO/GI (or just SO) employment protections changed their state human rights statutes to protect from public accommodation discrimination. And it’s worth noting that unlike ENDA, which only covers employment, there is no law being pushed by the community that would make a “We Don’t Serve Gays” sign illegal. (Now, as Mr. Uygur pointed out, the Kansas law goes further and protects government workers). So while this should be a wake-up call, it’s not enough to defeat these bills. We need affirmative legislation in every state, or better, at the federal level.

  16. emjayay says

    I think the bill isn’t actually getting through to becoming law. I believe the actual business community didn’t think it was a good idea to pass a law that would keep every corporation other than WalMart from moving to Kansas.

  17. SteveDenver says

    It is a shame the Kansas state legislature killed this. I would like to have seen them complete this noose and stick their heads through. It might have forced equal rights legislation on a Federal level.

  18. Michael Sawyer says

    Where did this guy get the opinion that its illegal to fire someone for being gay? Or that it infringes on federal law?