After passing Kansas House, bill allowing refusal of service facing opposition in Senate

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

House Bill 2453 would protect religious organizations who don't want to provide service to gay couples.

TOPEKA, Kan. — UPDATE: In a statement sent out by Kansas Senate President Susan Wagle (R-Wichita) on Thursday evening, she believes unless a common ground is found to ease concerns about the bill, it is unlikely to pass the senate. She further stated that after initially reviewing the bill she has grown concerned about its practical impact.

She stated that while a strong majority of her members support laws that define traditional marriage and protect individuals from being forced to violate personal morals, they do not condone discrimination. She does not believe a majority of her caucus will support the bill without the aforementioned common ground.

On Friday, AT&T issued a statement on HB 2453:

“As a major employer and retailer in Kansas, we strongly urge the Kansas Senate to reject HB 2453. ┬áThis legislation is impossible to implement. The bill promotes discriminatory behavior by businesses against their customers; and, it interferes with AT&T’s management of our employees. It eliminates the use of fair business practices with customers in Kansas. We applaud Senator Wagle’s leadership in pointing out the variety of problems with the bill.

The bill has moved to the Kansas Senate and is awaiting discussion by the Judiciary Committee.

Original story:

A bill that would protect religious individuals, groups and businesses who want to refuse services to same-sex couples passed the Republican-dominated House on Wednesday.

House Bill 2453 received a 72-49 vote and has gone to the Senate for its decision.

Such a law may seem unnecessary in a state where same-sex marriage is banned, but some Kansas lawmakers think different.

They want to prevent religious individuals and organizations from getting sued, or otherwise punished, for not providing goods or services to gay couples — or for not recognizing their marriages or committed relationship as valid.

This includes employees of the state.

The politics

The law claims to protect the rights of religious people, but gender rights advocates such as Equality Kansas are dismayed.

“Kansans across the state are rightly appalled that legislators are spending their efforts to pass yet another piece of legislation that seeks to enshrine discrimination against gay and lesbian people into law,” state chairwoman Sandra Meade said.

“HB 2453 is a blatant attempt to maintain second-class citizen status for taxpaying gay and lesbian Kansans.”

Despite the blowback, its chances of passing seem pretty good.

Republicans dominate the state’s Senate and Gov. Sam Brownback is a conservative Christian known for taking a public stand against same-sex marriage.

Brownback has already praised the bill in an interview with a local newspaper.

“Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity,” he told The Topeka Capital-Journal.

The details

HB 2453 is titled “An act concerning religious freedoms with respect to marriage” and covers many bases.

It reads, in part: “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:

“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.”

Anyone who turns away a gay couple not only can’t face a civil suit, but if anyone tries to sue, they could get nailed with the other side’s legal fees.

There are some small concession in the bill to gay couples.

If an employee at a nonreligious or government business refuses to serve a gay or lesbian couple for religious reasons, the manager is obligated to find another employee who will oblige.

It also explicitly says that the law does not authorize discrimination against anyone, including clergy, who performs or supports same-sex unions.

The trend

The Kansas bill would seem to buck the trend.

Laws approving same-sex marriage have recently passed in many parts of the United States, bringing the total number of states where it is legal to 17. Add to that the District of Columbia.

Worldwide, 16 other countries (and parts of Mexico) also have laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships. Most of the nations are in Europe and South America.

CNN’s Sonya Hamasaki contributed to this report.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

13 comments

  • LaRon

    Notice to all business that discriminate: Please put up a sign and make your position clear so I don’t spend my money in your establishment. You have competitors and many of them will be courteous and graciously accept my hard earned money.

    • Kung Fu Punchin'

      Agreed, I’m not perfect. I have Flaws. Owners turn away $$$$? Would I be discriminated against because I like rap, but wear combat boots? I’m in the Service, what if they’re anti-military, I’d go ballistic especially if my children were with me. How is the bill written, does it re enforce the owners right to refuse service? I don’t see this causing much of a stir. Its whatever

  • RM (@kanzaz)

    No, I don’t. It’s discrimination and people will use so called ‘religious’ reasons to throw out anyone they choose. How are they to determine who is a couple and not, if the couple doesn’t say so? By looks? Give me a break. It’s a backwards idiotic bill. Kansas is moving backwards not forward. Its 2014, not the 14th century. If there is a petition against it, I’d love to sign.

  • Tom Paine

    Just wondering, but if a same-sex couple can force a bakery or photographer to provide services for a wedding that violates their religious beliefs and consciences, can they also force kosher Jewish or Islamic caterer to prepare “unclean” pork dishes for the reception?

    There is a reason for the order of the rights listed in the Declaration – Life, then liberty followed by pursuit of happiness – any other order is a violation of the natural law…