first_imgCommentary by Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow — H.B. No. 2453…Oh, boy.Kansas is in the national spotlight again for all the wrong reasons with a bill called H.B. No. 2453 that proposes allowing public and private employees the right to refuse service based on religious views of marriage.Translation: We don’t want to serve homosexuals.The bill passed the House, and now goes to the Senate. If it is passed there then all eyes will be on Governor Sam Brownback to sign it into law.However, there is some good news. The bill appears on its way to dying thanks to one courageous legislator, who happens to be a Republican. Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle told Wichita Eagle reporter Bryan Lowery in his excellently written piece here,  it is unlikely that H.R. 2453 will get through the Senate. She has relegated it to a Judiciary Committee, who is “very busy” with other matters, but could get to it at a later date.In other words, the check is in the mail.Wagle told Lowery:“After an initial review, I’ve grown concerned about the practical impact of the bill.”Ya’ think?And to think in the 1990s, Wagle was considered one of the hardest right wingers in the legislature.I’m not about to debate the merits of homosexuality and same-sex couples, because everyone has a different view of morality. And quite frankly, the topic bores me. But I will address the legal practicality of H.R. 2453.First of all, the law would be unenforceable!For instance, let’s say I go into a restaurant with a gay person. Since I’m straight, but the other guy is gay, would we be considered a gay couple? And really how would the restaurant owner know who is gay and who is not?And if the business owners decide to discriminate and refuse service, aren’t they setting themselves up for a potential civil suit, not to mention immense ridicule on the Internet? The thing is if Brownback passed it into law, there is no way the law would be upheld by the court’s anyway. The U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down gay marriage bans in Oklahoma and Utah. Would they really uphold a law that touts discrimination?The bill also is so poorly written, legislators are ambiguous what it actually means. Rep. Charles Macheers, a Republican from Shawnee, who drafted the bill has repeatedly said it only relates to wedding-related businesses. But others say the bill is too broadly defined and even stretches into marriages not considered traditional like women working out of the house. Again read the Eagle article.The biggest problem I see with the bill is not its ineffectiveness or its lack of a defined meaning. My problem is H.R. 2453 gives the national pundits another excuse to bully Kansas – paint us as bigoted Neanderthals. We all know that isn’t the case. Kansas has had a strong tradition of progressive politics with strong traditional values. We eat meat, shoot guns and go to church every week and we also innovate as far as public policy. We brought the nation Bob Dole.Unfortunately, a bill such as this wipes that all away and gives ammunition to those talking heads and comedians on cable T.V. and the Internet, a chance to make a witty soundbite at Kansas’ expense.H.B. 2453 illustrates there is a group of people holding the power in the Kansas leadership, who are unable to grasp how to use that power.True power is the ability to move people — to bring people together for a common good… to persuade.But the current Kansas leadership seems more like it wants to antagonize anyone who differs from their point of view. Mark my words, if Wagle decides to run for reelection, she will be in for the fight of her life.Perhaps, those running the Kansas legislature should read the biography of the greatest Conservative to ever walk this earth: Ronald Wilson Reagan. He knew how to play his cards. He knew what battles to fight. He loved his enemies and in the process tempered their opposition.And he effectively got what he wanted.It seems like an attitude lost on our current Kansas leadership.In an era of unGodly morality, and our failure to be civil, the message of the Christian Coalition should have been a winning one.But when bills like H.R. 2453 that are rooted in hate and are destined to fail, make such significant progress in the Kansas legislative process, then whatever other legitimate message that is being sent by the same group, will go on deaf ears.Here’s hoping this bill dies very quickly, and the rest of the country can divert their short attention span elsewhere. Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (31) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +21 Vote up Vote down Republican · 338 weeks ago Government should stay out of people’s bedrooms. The far right Governor has an agenda that doesn’t appeal to this voter. Report Reply 1 reply · active 338 weeks ago +7 Vote up Vote down Catfish Charlie · 338 weeks ago Also better shoot down, I believe Senate Bill 350 (public school financing). Property taxes will go sky high on each individual school district. Report Reply 0 replies · active 338 weeks ago +9 Vote up Vote down Homeboy · 338 weeks ago I feel like this Bill would set Kansas back. Please get rid of the bigoted people. Report Reply 0 replies · active 338 weeks ago +21 Vote up Vote down 2014?Really? · 338 weeks ago I want to know who the hell is seriously spending our tax dollars on this ridiculous legislation. I figure it is because of the ignorant individuals that do not educate themselves before they VOTE! How did these guys get into office? Was it because they had an R by their name? Brilliant strategy! How about we use the money toward education……I know that is a strange concept, but it might just work! Report Reply 0 replies · active 338 weeks ago -6 Vote up Vote down Jim · 338 weeks ago Has anyone read this Bill or is everyone just listening and arguing over the FLAK put out by the Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender movement.(GLBT initials are always used) The is a bill to keep the government from FORCING an individual or religious entity from REQUIRING to do something against their will. As Amended by House Committee Session of 2014 HOUSE BILL No. 2453 By Committee on Federal and State Affairs 1-16 AN ACT concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: Section 1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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: (a) 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; (b) solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or (c) treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid. Sec. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no refusal by an individual or religious entity to engage in any activity described in section 1, and amendments thereto, shall result in: (1) A civil claim or cause of action under state or local law based upon such refusal; or (2) an action by any governmental entity to penalize, withhold benefits from, discriminate against or otherwise disadvantage any protected individual or religious entity, under any state or local law. (b) Any individual or religious entity named in or subject to a civil action, an administrative action or any action by a governmental entity may immediately assert the protections provided by section 1, and amendments thereto, or this section, as a defense by moving to dismiss such action. If the motion to dismiss is filed in an action before an administrative tribunal, within 15 days after the filing of such motion any party to such action may elect to transfer jurisdiction of such action to a district court with proper venue. Within 60 days after such transfer of jurisdiction, the district court shall decide whether the claimed protection applies. The district court shall not permit any additional discovery or factfinding prior to making its decision Brief* HB 2453, as amended, would create new law to prohibit an individual or religious entity from being required by any governmental entity to do anything with respect to activities identified in the bill, if contrary to an individual’s or religious entity’s sincerely held religious belief regarding sex or gender. Those activities identified in the bill include: ● Providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, privileges, counseling, adoption, foster care, other social services, employment or employment benefits related to any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or similar arrangement; ● Solemnizing any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or similar arrangement; or ● Treating as valid any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union, or similar arrangement. Under the bill’s provisions, the refusal of an individual or religious entity to engage in the listed activities could not result in a civil claim or cause of action under state or local law or an action by a governmental entity to penalize, withhold benefits from, discriminate against, or otherwise disadvantage an individual or religious entity protected by the bill’s provisions. Report Reply 1 reply · active 338 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down Michael Wolff · 338 weeks ago I am not surprised at the level of anger against conservative Christians standing up for what they believe. The homosexual agenda is to silence and force all people to accept their life style as good and right. They will call Christians bigoted, intolerant, bullies, and hateful. Even one person said “get rid of bigoted people.” Another said that Christians are “ignorant”, so I guess we just need to be taught correct thinking. Finally, the author said that this bill is rooted in hate. He seems to imply that people who want to be free from doing things against their religion are hateful. A person can consciously object to killing in the military and they can be given different jobs. It seems to me this is that kind of bill. If you haven’t noticed many people in entertainment ridicule and mock Christians all the time Report Reply 4 replies · active 338 weeks ago -1 Vote up Vote down anonymous · 338 weeks ago Tell you what. I’m all for gay equal rights and stuff like that. If I take my kids into a restaurant and a couple of guys are sitting at the next table kissing on each other and acting like clowns, i sure as heck want them thrown out. No two ways about it. Got it ? That’s not being a bigot. Thats having some decorum. So all you left-wingers who support “special privileges” for special-interest groups and who LEAP at anything even remotely “against” their “special agenda” need to start thinking twice about some of the crazy bills they bring to vote. Some of this stuff… well, you really DONT WANT going on in public. Think, think, think. Report Reply 4 replies · active 338 weeks ago +3 Vote up Vote down Let us know · 338 weeks ago Tracy can you open up an area where if we get news we can post it and you can check on it and give us all the inside info. I heard last night that Wal-Mart is going to start remodeling and taking away our super center making it just a regular wal mart and moving their front doors and going to cut employees and shorter hours instead of being open 24hrs. just curious if you have heard anything. Report Reply 1 reply · active 338 weeks ago -2 Vote up Vote down JustMe · 338 weeks ago It’s unfortunate that the left always jumps at the chance to name call as soon as someone simply has a differnet opinion. Someone having a difference of opinon/moral, don’t make the two sides enemies. I’m always open to agreeing to disagree. Report Reply 2 replies · active 338 weeks ago +5 Vote up Vote down jayhawks · 338 weeks ago I believe a business owner should have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose. If they cab say no shies, no shirt no service isnt other areas that they so choose on to? There are many others places a person can go if that said business refuses them. If I was ever refused service I would simply move on. AND I agree with Pastor Wolff. Report Reply 4 replies · active 338 weeks ago 12Next » Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new commentslast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *