Discrimination | Gay Rights | Kansas | News | Tea Party | Wichita

Tea Party Group Renews Push for Kansas Bill Legalizing Gay Discrimination

A Wichita-based tea party group is attempting to revive a Kansas bill that would allow religious-based discrimination against gays, with the group saying the bill is as much a protection of LGBT rights as it is a protection of the rights of Christians.The bill is currently blocked in the Kansas Senate after a group of Republican lawmakers, including Senate President Susan Wagle, joined the Democrat opposition last week. The Lawrence Journal-World reports:

Craig gabelCraig Gabel [pictured], leader of Kansans for Liberty, sent a message addressed to "conservative activists" asking them to contact senators who are refusing to allow a vote on a house bill dubbed the Kansas Religious Freedom Act, The Wichita Eagle reported. […]

“This is not a Christian battle this is a freedom battle, including the freedom of LGBT couples, the sample letter said. "If an LGBT couple owned a meeting space would any of us like to force them to rent it for an anti-gay rally and wedding? Should an African American and his LGBT partner be forced to lease his space or services for a KKK wedding?"

Thomas Witt, executive director of Equality Kansas, blasted the notion that the bill contains anything but pure animus directed at the LGBT community.

"The sophistry is breathtaking," he said. "There's only one target in this bill and it is gay couples."

The only people who would benefit from the legislation are anti-gay individuals who would gain legal protection if they defy their employers and refuse to serve gay couples, he said.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Mr. Gabel's faked "sympathy" for the gblt community is just that....fake..he is no more interesting in protecting the gblt community than the man in the moon...the proposed law is ONLY for the anti-gay community so that they can legally discriminate against gays

    Posted by: Bernie | Feb 23, 2014 2:03:02 PM

  2. But remember, the tea people are only about taxes. They don't care about anything else.

    Posted by: Steve | Feb 23, 2014 2:05:00 PM

  3. "If an LGBT couple owned a meeting space would any of us like to force them to rent it for an anti-gay rally and wedding?"

    Now this is really funny!
    So they don't want to take our money (as in make a cake for a wedding) but they want to give us money to rent a space from us?
    When pigs fly!

    Posted by: lou | Feb 23, 2014 2:08:08 PM

  4. I think the tea party is in for a rude awakening with the next round of elections. The established old guard Republicans are pretty fed up with them and what they have done to destroy the Republican party. They'll work to replace those hard right-wingers with candidates of their own (more pleasing) choosing.

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | Feb 23, 2014 2:10:45 PM

  5. why are these facist sociopaths allowed to have a voice?

    Posted by: woodroad34 | Feb 23, 2014 2:31:14 PM

  6. All those years of dissembling an lying by Te Party leaders saying that they were all about fiscal issues and that the members of their group had various stances on social issues. Bull Sh&&!! They've always been a groups of hate-filled, KKK-type yahoos. The truth always comes out in the end.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Feb 23, 2014 3:21:48 PM

  7. "Should an African American and his LGBT partner be forced to lease his space or services for a KKK wedding?"

    Exactly! All those KKK weddings! I just don't know what I'll do if I have to rent to one more white power bride who walks in and says, "Hey, you n*@@#r-loving f@ggot! Got any openings in June?"

    Posted by: JJ | Feb 23, 2014 3:46:26 PM

  8. By this logic German Jews should have actively supported the 1935 Nuremberg laws that ostracized them from the German economy and society since no Jew should have been forced to do business with a Gentile. Who do these people think they're fooling?

    Posted by: Jim | Feb 23, 2014 4:17:46 PM

  9. @MIKE RYAN, sadly for the old guard, they married their party to Christian fundamentalists--a voter base that demands ideological purity at all costs. What can a less extreme candidate do to beat a more pure candidate in a primary when the most dogmatic voters are the ones most organized and most motivated to vote in the primaries?

    Posted by: JJ | Feb 23, 2014 4:24:58 PM

  10. I never did understand the claim of some tea baggers that they were just for economic issues and not for social issues. Maybe a handful were that way. But the teabag movement has always been a very reactionary social movement.

    Posted by: john patrick | Feb 23, 2014 4:25:36 PM

  11. The duplicitous mind of a fundamentalist.
    How to try to sell this to the public? 'It protects LGBT, too.'

    No. Fool. It's purpose is to legalize discrimination. And if society gets torn apart in the doing the Koch Bros are OK with that.

    The TP revealed it's hand a long while ago. Rand Paul thinks Jim Crow laws were legal and fine. Marco Rubio said anything LGBT affirming in immigration legislation was a deal breaker. Palin jumped on the Phil Robertson free speech bandwagon and then admitted she didn't even know what was said. Cruz is the single biggest joke of them all. He won't even be answerable to the TP. He's a dominionist.
    Not a true civil servant in the entire lot.

    Biggest SCOTUS mistake in decades was Citizens United. It gave the superwealthy the ability to create their own political party, thus the TP. Biggest political mistake in decades was the GOP welcoming the TP with open arms unvetted.

    Koch Bros and friends (including gay Ayn Rand devotee Peter Thiel) are spending $500M on TP primaries in 2014.

    National GOP leadership is clueless. Their own candidates are primaried by the TP and they don't know how to stop it. The TP used the GOP like hostages to shut down the government. They threatened that Republicans who didn't support their obstructionist anti-government antics would be primaried out of office.

    Lovely bunch. 'Leave no lie untold' is their motto.

    Posted by: BOOM! | Feb 23, 2014 4:30:43 PM

  12. Of course the anti-gay rally and KKK wedding are red herrings. They would both be held gladly in any local church, and probably free of charge.

    Posted by: JT | Feb 23, 2014 4:45:24 PM

  13. Darn you JJ, "Hey, you n*@@#r-loving f@ggot! Got any openings in June?" I about choked because of you. ;)

    Posted by: Daniel in MO | Feb 23, 2014 5:11:39 PM

  14. False analgy. Gays just live their lives while anti-gays oppress the lives of gays; the first is not harmful and the second is. Also, KKK harms, gays do not. One cannot put on equal footing those who just want to live their lives with others who want to harm them.
    Anti-gays are harmful. KKK is harmful. Gays are harmLESS.

    One thing I'm super curious about, what does an 'anti-gay wedding' look like?????

    Posted by: StickyGoodness | Feb 23, 2014 6:32:13 PM

  15. Sorry, BOOM!, but Citizens United was 2010, a few years after the Tea Party was formed. The TP was started by the Koch brothers funding way back when Obama was first running for president. It was an attempt to distance the GOP from the disaster of Cheney/Bush and was a rallying point for the racial hatred of the conservative right.

    And the Tea Bagger's anti-gay animus was there from the beginning.

    Posted by: Bucky | Feb 23, 2014 6:32:35 PM

  16. How is a black person not serving the KKK a religious issue? Sorry Mr. Gabel, but your analogy only makes it clear that this isn't about "religious freedom" but just about giving cover to discriminate against people you don't like.

    Posted by: e.c. | Feb 23, 2014 7:32:51 PM

  17. Having been in management I know that there are plenty of ways to avoid providing a service or getting rid of a troublesome employee without running afoul of certain laws. He just wants to do away with hassle. Too bad. The laws aren't perfect by any means, hence the need at times to dance around them by management, but they do provide some protection and frankly bring about an overall change of attitude.

    Posted by: JohnAGJ | Feb 23, 2014 8:17:23 PM

  18. @Bucky
    Koch Bros backed Citizens United has been around since the 80's. Tea Party activists supported Reaganesque style tax cuts opposing the stimulus and bailouts as an answer to the quickly sinking 2008 economy. The stench of Bush was secondary. Their entire formation agenda was tax cuts.
    After the 2008 election thumping the Koch Bros got serious about the fledgling TP after it was decided to retry Citizens United. From a very narrow ruling (2009) on restricting media on candidates before an election to a broad spectrum corporate finance in elections ruling (2010) where corporations have personhood and spending money is equated to corp free speech. And the money can't go directly to a political party. You could almost say tailor made for the Koch Bros. (Do you think the Koch Bros $500K donation to Ginny Thomas's PAC had any bearing?)

    Koch Bros figured out right away that the easiest entry and biggest bang for the buck is primaries. GOP was duped but could hardly raise a stink about the candidate running as a Republican. Lesson learned too late.
    TPers are not Republicans.

    Posted by: BOOM! | Feb 23, 2014 9:18:59 PM

  19. Funny how when the Tea Party started it was all about tax reform, reducing the national debt, and the financial health of the country. It seemed libertarian and somewhat populist even, drawing it's name from the Boston Tea Party. But now it's just another group of wacky social conservatives with the same hate-filled agenda.

    Posted by: Lexis | Feb 23, 2014 10:22:41 PM

  20. It's incidents like these that I am convinced that the only good evangelical Tea Batty is a dead evangelical Tea Batty. I'll leave it to their "god" to decide how to bring about such an event.

    Posted by: jamal49 | Feb 24, 2014 9:25:24 AM

Post a comment


« «Report: Brooklyn Nets To Sign Jason Collins« «