Kansas House Bill No. 2453

[Amy The Bookworm]

I'm not sure if this counts as news or where to put it, as what I'm writing about comes from something I just found on a government web site for the Kansas Legislature.

So, I was doing some checking up on my politicians in my state this morning and I came across Kansas house Bill No. 2453

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_00_0000.pdf

I'm amazed I haven't heard anything about it before now.

For those pressed for time, what it says is:

In the name of religion, it is legal in the state of Kansas for:

Individuals and religious entities:

Do not need to provide any services, accommodations, advantages (...that's awfully vague isn't it...), facilities, goods, privileges (again ... very vague),  counseling, adoption, foster care (...meaning if foster parents find out a child in their care is LGBT they don't have to provide any kind of assistance or shelter for them... It's bad enough when they go after us adults but KIDS?!), other social services, provide employment, employment benefits, recognition or in any way validate  any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or similar arrangement.

Stores, government offices, and companies do not need to serve people that they think might be LGBT. This also counts for individual employees (including government employees) going against the companies own policies to do so.

Meaning, if the company feels LGBT people are ok to work with and has non discrimination policies? The best they can do if an employee doesn't want to, say, check out a customer's items at the local wall mart, Wall Mart either has to deny that customer its services, or find another employee willing to do it. If the local manager at an Apple store is anti LGBT, despite pro LGBT company policies, they don't have to follow them in highering under religious grounds. If a state employee is LGBT and their boss isn't, their boss can fire them despite Executive Orders in Kansas barring discrimination within government jobs.

Oh, and look, it gets better!

If you even try to bring someone up for trial to fight for your rights in the state of Kansas, YOU have to pay THEIR court costs, meaning there is no way to legally fight this bill.

I have found a petition on Change.org here: https://www.change.org/petitions/gov-sam-brownback-do-not-legalize-discrimination-overturning-house-bill-no-2453 if anyone would like to sign it to try to get it overturned, as the Kansas House has already passed it, apparently on Thursday.

All of this applies even to people even suspected of being LGBT by religious individuals and organizations. In a state like Kansas ... that's a lot of people.

After re-reading this thing 6 times ... I honestly don't think it gets much worse than this bill. The only ways it could be worse would be if they legally allowed people to rob, beat, murder and rape us, or started throwing up concentration death camps.

On a more personal note: I live in Kansas.

I'm open to suggestions.

[ClaudiaLove]

I just can't believe that is real in the 2014 society . I read it a few times and my brain can't seem to accept that .   

[Sydney_NYC]

If that ever passed it would be struck down by federal courts in a heartbeat. (At least so I would hope.) The way this bill is worded it could easily backfire on them. I could have a business and refuse to serve a homophobic or transphobic person (or someone I thought might be) based on my religious beliefs. Of course they would probably claim that their religious beliefs were being violated by your religious beliefs. It starts this cycle that could never end.

[Androgynous_Machine]

I wouldn't get too wound up about it. . .unless you live in Kansas.


The fact is roughly half of all Fortune 500 companies have explicit, self-imposed, non-discrimination policies toward hiring and serving transgendered men and women.

Companies, businesses, etc are in the business of making money.  Not serving specific groups lowers their customer base and shuffling those customers to competitors, and not hiring based on gender identity causes you to lose good employees to competitors.

I'm not giving the Kansas legislature a pass here, but political pandering to Evangelical Christians isn't going to matter much in the long run.

-AM

[Amy The Bookworm]

I wouldn't get too wound up about it. . .unless you live in Kansas.


The fact is roughly half of all Fortune 500 companies have explicit, self-imposed, non-discrimination policies toward hiring and serving transgendered men and women.

Companies, businesses, etc are in the business of making money.  Not serving specific groups lowers their customer base and shuffling those customers to competitors, and not hiring based on gender identity causes you to lose good employees to competitors.

I'm not giving the Kansas legislature a pass here, but political pandering to Evangelical Christians isn't going to matter much in the long run.

-AM

... yeah.

But I live in Kansas. So this IS a big deal to me.

And while I know a company has those rules .... this bill says that employees within the company (say, a local manager) don't have to follow those rules if they don't mesh with their personally held religious beliefs, because the law applies to individuals.

I bet that if this takes off here, it'll start showing up in other states as well.

[Yukari-sensei]

... yeah.

But I live in Kansas. So this IS a big deal to me. 

And while I know a company has those rules .... this bill says that employees within the company (say, a local manager) don't have to follow those rules if they don't mesh with their personally held religious beliefs, because the law applies to individuals.

I bet that if this takes off here, it'll start showing up in other states as well.

Tell me about it. I've been amazed at what has gone through in Texas, but I think... I hope, the pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction.

[Androgynous_Machine]

... yeah.

But I live in Kansas. So this IS a big deal to me.

And while I know a company has those rules .... this bill says that employees within the company (say, a local manager) don't have to follow those rules if they don't mesh with their personally held religious beliefs, because the law applies to individuals.

I bet that if this takes off here, it'll start showing up in other states as well.

This is why you vote with your feet sometimes.

MN is transfriendly, it's cool and all, if you don't mind the bitter cold.  On the upside, you get to wear some really cute boots, scarves, coats, and hats!

-AM

[Kyra553]

... yeah.

But I live in Kansas. So this IS a big deal to me.

And while I know a company has those rules .... this bill says that employees within the company (say, a local manager) don't have to follow those rules if they don't mesh with their personally held religious beliefs, because the law applies to individuals.

I bet that if this takes off here, it'll start showing up in other states as well.

Yeah I second that! As if fellow Kansas's didn't have enough to worry about...

Here is the information on the bottom of the bill

" 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 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"

"Nothing in sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto, shall be
construed to authorize any governmental discrimination or penalty against
any individual or religious entity based upon its performance, facilitation
or support of any celebrations of same-gender unions or relationships.
(d) The provisions of sections 1 through 4, and amendments thereto,
shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to
the maximum extent permitted by their terms and by the constitutions of
this state and the United States of America.
Sec. 5. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its
publication in the statute book"



So perhaps its not intended to be as bad as it is. But none the less it needs to go.

I signed the petition  and shared on Facebook.

[farmergirl1]

I do live in Kansas now, and I have two gay daughters here. Furthermore, 14 years ago I had SRS (not that it's common knowledge).
I've seen it, you betcha.

Anyway, this bill, according to the Senate President (also Republican), will probably not pass the Senate in its present form. See the story in the Wichita Eagle: http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/13/3287827/susan-wagle-bill-that-allows-service.html.

As someone who once worked in a statehouse as an intern, and spent many hours looking over bills for their viability, let's just say she's right...it's badly written. And all those bozos who voted for it? Wow. Someone dropped the ball big time in Topeka.

[ZoeM]

all this being said, a conscience objection provision does need to be written. The photographers, bakers, and other professionals being forced to actively participate in LGBT unions are as much victims as anyone, and it would be very nice if both sides could start working on compromises that protect both LGBT freedoms and religious freedoms. As long as that doesn't happen, we get stuff like this, or lawsuits vs. the aforementioned bakers.

[Kyra553]

I do live in Kansas now, and I have two gay daughters here. Furthermore, 14 years ago I had SRS (not that it's common knowledge).
I've seen it, you betcha.

Anyway, this bill, according to the Senate President (also Republican), will probably not pass the Senate in its present form. See the story in the Wichita Eagle: http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/13/3287827/susan-wagle-bill-that-allows-service.html.

As someone who once worked in a statehouse as an intern, and spent many hours looking over bills for their viability, let's just say she's right...it's badly written. And all those bozos who voted for it? Wow. Someone dropped the ball big time in Topeka.

Good Article, I enjoyed reading it.

I just have to say, as a Kansas-an I enjoy many of our conservative views with keeping constitutional laws. However I did not know we could cast back over a hundred years of progress in one frail swoop. Hopefully this bill is shot down and burned with no revisions. Its made a ton of negative national news so I highly doubt it will make it far.

[Hikari]

I do live in Kansas now, and I have two gay daughters here. Furthermore, 14 years ago I had SRS (not that it's common knowledge).
I've seen it, you betcha.

Anyway, this bill, according to the Senate President (also Republican), will probably not pass the Senate in its present form. See the story in the Wichita Eagle: http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/13/3287827/susan-wagle-bill-that-allows-service.html.

As someone who once worked in a statehouse as an intern, and spent many hours looking over bills for their viability, let's just say she's right...it's badly written. And all those bozos who voted for it? Wow. Someone dropped the ball big time in Topeka.

As an observer of politics I have noticed that since the rise of the Tea Party in 2010 there are just lots more inexperienced politicians in office, not all of them related to the Tea Party directly, but since incumbents have retired and been beaten at rather higher rates than seems normal since then. I have seen bills that were very badly written, or written with the sole purpose of trying to provoke controversy much more often than I had in the past.

To me, Kansas just seems to be an unreasonable place (HOW CAN THERE BE THAT MUCH WIND!?) but, at least it looks unlikely for to pass for those that live there, still if it does (or even if it doesn't) I invite you all to the east coast, where Tornadoes are rare

[Amy The Bookworm]

I very much want to leave this state. Unfortunately my wife is insisting on staying here, which I am more than a little upset about.

[VeryGnawty]

And while I know a company has those rules .... this bill says that employees within the company (say, a local manager) don't have to follow those rules if they don't mesh with their personally held religious beliefs, because the law applies to individuals.

You know what most employers will do if someone refuses to do their job?  They will replace the person with someone who is willing to do the job.

My previous employer couldn't give a flying hoot about your religious beliefs.  All he cared about was whether you could get the job done properly or not.  If your "religious beliefs" prevented you from doing your job, they would also prevent you from being able to keep that job...

Just sayin'

It is my experience that most employers have a "deeply held belief" in the almighty dollar.

[Jamie D]

I do live in Kansas now, and I have two gay daughters here. Furthermore, 14 years ago I had SRS (not that it's common knowledge).
I've seen it, you betcha.

Anyway, this bill, according to the Senate President (also Republican), will probably not pass the Senate in its present form. See the story in the Wichita Eagle: http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/13/3287827/susan-wagle-bill-that-allows-service.html.

As someone who once worked in a statehouse as an intern, and spent many hours looking over bills for their viability, let's just say she's right...it's badly written. And all those bozos who voted for it? Wow. Someone dropped the ball big time in Topeka.

State Senate President Susan Wagle said she anticipated that the bill would not pass the Senate: "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. However, my members also don't condone discrimination."

[amZo]

As an observer of politics I have noticed that since the rise of the Tea Party in 2010 there are just lots more inexperienced politicians in office, not all of them related to the Tea Party directly, but since incumbents have retired and been beaten at rather higher rates than seems normal since then. I have seen bills that were very badly written, or written with the sole purpose of trying to provoke controversy much more often than I had in the past.

To me, Kansas just seems to be an unreasonable place (HOW CAN THERE BE THAT MUCH WIND!?) but, at least it looks unlikely for to pass for those that live there, still if it does (or even if it doesn't) I invite you all to the east coast, where Tornadoes are rare

Uhhh... Would that be Obama and Obamacare, respectively?   

Amy, I grew up 35 miles from the Kansas border... I've been there twice my whole life if that tells you anything... 

[Shantel]

I read it and didn't read all of that into it as it really seems to be quite ambiguous which means that any interpretation for the use of bias against any individual or group of individuals could easily be defeated in a court of law. But who knows, maybe I'm just stupid and didn't extrapolate all that some here got from it.

[amZo]

I think the intent was to allow people with strong religious convictions to not recognize same sex marriage in a very convoluted way? But I couldn't follow the bill either...