What's the Matter with Kansas: Religious Freedom versus Discrimination

[PanzerJaeger]

Kansas has recently become a test case for a new type of anti-gay legislation being pushed by Christians across the US that abandons the fight against gay marriage itself and instead focuses on their obligation to recognize such marriages in their professional lives - both in the public and private sectors. The bill raises some interesting questions regarding the line between religious freedom and discrimination, especially when providing services to the public at large. It also attempts to make the distinction between discriminating against gay couples and gay individuals, arguing that the two are not one in the same.

If that sounds overblown, consider the bill itself. When passed, the new law will allow any individual, group, or private business to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” Private employers can continue to fire gay employees on account of their sexuality. Stores may deny gay couples goods and services because they are gay. Hotels can eject gay couples or deny them entry in the first place. Businesses that provide public accommodations—movie theaters, restaurants—can turn away gay couples at the door. And if a gay couple sues for discrimination, they won’t just lose; they’ll be forced to pay their opponent’s attorney’s fees. As I’ve noted before, anti-gay businesses might as well put out signs alerting gay people that their business isn’t welcome.

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to barring all anti-discrimination lawsuits against private employers, the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.” This is nothing new, but the sweep of Kansas’ statute is breathtaking. Any government employee is given explicit permission to discriminate against gay couples—not just county clerks and DMV employees, but literally anyone who works for the state of Kansas. If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

It gets worse. The law’s advocates claim that it applies only to gay couples—but there’s no clear limiting principle in the text of the bill that would keep it from applying to gay individuals as well. A catch-all clause allows businesses and bureaucrats to discriminate against gay people so long as this discrimination is somehow “related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.” (Emphases mine.) This subtle loophole is really just a blank check to discriminate: As long as an individual believes that his service is somehow linked to a gay union of any form, he can legally refuse his services. And since anyone who denies gays service is completely shielded from any charges, no one will ever have to prove that their particular form of discrimination fell within the four corners of the law.

I thought that this was all worked out during the civil rights movement, but apparently not. I am torn on this issue when it comes to the private sector. I do like the idea of a private business person being compelled to offer his or her services to anyone for any reason. However, I also do not that business person to benefit from the infrastructure my tax dollars fund to enforce his own brand of discrimination. On the other hand, public employees should never be allowed to deny service to any member of the public based on religious beliefs... its part of the job.

[HoreTore]

10 bucks says the next person caught for shoe-tapping in men's restrooms will be the person who wrote this bill.

Any takers?

also, you forgot the linky

[Montmorency]

If a gay couple calls the police, an officer may refuse to help them if interacting with a gay couple violates his religious principles. State hospitals can turn away gay couples at the door and deny them treatment with impunity. Gay couples can be banned from public parks, public pools, anything that operates under the aegis of the Kansas state government.

Can even most criminals and aliens be treated this way? I hope that's all an exaggeration. If not, this is a clear case where the federal govt needs to crack down - hard.

[rvg]

I do like the idea of a private business person being compelled to offer his or her services to anyone for any reason...

I'm not sure what is there to like. Telling private businesses how to do business doesn't sound very pro-business.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think private business should be able to serve whoever they want, and not serve whoever they want.

I for none would never go to a place that was openly discriminating gays, how about you?

It's the structural problem of gay bashing that is the problem, ie religion. We should attack that, not private businessmen wanting to live their life the way they want to.

I for one never taught black people skiing, as I quite like having the ski mountains as white little haven in an otherwise multicultural society. Haven't been much of an issue as blacks don't tend to ski. And if they DO want to learn to ski they are way better off with an instructor less racist than me anyway.

I don't think gay people WANT to hand their money to gay-haters anyway. Much better go elsewhere.

That said, public offices should of course be inclusive and not discriminate their services.

[rvg]

I think private business should be able to serve whoever they want, and not serve whoever they want.

Yup.

I for none would never go to a place that was openly discriminating gays, how about you?

Right, if it is a bad business decision, the market will punish them. Turning away paying customers doesn't sound like good business unless the loss of those customers brings many more of other customers.

That said, public offices should of course be inclusive and not discriminate their services.

Right. The state cannot be allowed to discriminate. That part is non-negotiable.

[Montmorency]

I for one never taught black people skiing,

Yep. Wouldn't want to be an oil-driller.

Turning away paying customers doesn't sound like good business unless the loss of those customers brings many more of other customers.

The fear is that there would be no local alternative for those refused service, leading to ostracism and extortion. While I'm sure that this wouldn't seriously affect more than a small minority of an affected community, the fact remains that some will be, to various extents. Ultimately, the goal is both to avoid a corrosive influence on the social fabric and to force select prejudices to "die on the vine", so to speak, by maintaining an atmosphere in which everyone has in mind that certain discriminatory practices in general (i.e. not just in commerce) are looked down upon in our society.

There's also this perspective, that once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve

[Kadagar_AV]

Yep. Wouldn't want to be an oil-driller.



The fear is that there would be no local alternative for those refused service, leading to ostracism and extortion. While I'm sure that this wouldn't seriously affect more than a small minority of an affected community, the fact remains that some will be, to various extents. Ultimately, the goal is both to avoid a corrosive influence on the social fabric and to force select prejudices to "die on the vine", so to speak, by maintaining an atmosphere in which everyone has in mind that certain discriminatory practices in general (i.e. not just in commerce) are looked down upon in our society.

There's also this perspective, that once a business decides to advertise its services to the public at large, it gives up the prerogative to pick and choose which customers to serve

I don't get your reference to oil drilling...Private instruction in alpine conditions means you get quite close. I just took that up as example as to why being able to say no to customers are beneficial for both parts. Just like I don't want them as customers, they don't want me instructing them as I (contrary to others) wouldn't be at my best.

I don't get why gays should WANT to go to establishments that honestly doesn't like them. I can only see this being a problem in very small towns, and if a town is so backwater and hateful that you can't get the stuff you need for being discriminated, you are WAY better off elsewhere anyway.

If we seek to help gays with rights, there are a load of things to address that seem more urgent.

[Sarmatian]

Yup.


Right, if it is a bad business decision, the market will punish them. Turning away paying customers doesn't sound like good business unless the loss of those customers brings many more of other customers.

I'm sure you'd use the same line of reasoning if someone dear to you would die because he or she was refused access to a private hospital.

[Beskar]

I'm sure you'd use the same line of reasoning if someone dear to you would die because he or she was refused access to a private hospital.

American Healthcare, the more I read about it, the more angry I get...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is clearly broken, even with 'insurance' which doesn't even cover the costs.

"But if we have an NHS, they would tax us far more! its evil and the guvvment will rob us"
Increase in tax amount (over-generous 10%): $170 (from 1700 average per month in US), $340 (Family) Insurance Premiums: $400 Single, $1114 (Family) [2009] (Current is apparently significantly higher)

With this, you get all your costs covered except for prescription medication which you will receive at a discount price.

Pretty much, paying the extra-tax would be cheaper unless you are earning over $4000 per month. When you start getting up into those higher figures, you can afford to pay more regardless.

[Ironside]

Right, if it is a bad business decision, the market will punish them. Turning away paying customers doesn't sound like good business unless the loss of those customers brings many more of other customers.

For the bill to have any better chance than a snowball in hell, then the support of it has to be a bit higher than 5-10%. People aren't homo economicus, so I'm quite certain there's plenty of companies that would make that bad buisness decision to support their bigotry and survive well enough. And smaller places (and depending on the type of store, we can talk about 100.000 cities or larger) might not have an alternative.

To put it simple, any human interaction is a compromise of your personal rights. By being in the position of power, you can by default trample the other person's right more than he can do with yours. People have traits that are either impossible or almost impossible to change, so to be discriminated by those can severly hinder them from living a normal life.

Kadagar, to put it this way. With only these two options what should weight higher? That a black man wants to ski and get professional help for it, or that he can't get professional skiing help because you don't want to teach black people? I know you prefer the third option, but laws need to have a third option in that case (you can be a little discriminating, but only a little).

People with previlege is quite prone to want to keep them as the default position, even while knowing that it damages for others. Those friendly Swiss males took ages to decide that their daughters and wives should be allowed to vote. Second last canton decided it 1989, first one 1959 (30-40 years after rest of Europe). The last one got forced to accept women voting in 1990.

[rvg]

For the bill to have any better chance than a snowball in hell, then the support of it has to be a bit higher than 5-10%. People aren't homo economicus, so I'm quite certain there's plenty of companies that would make that bad buisness decision to support their bigotry and survive well enough. And smaller places (and depending on the type of store, we can talk about 100.000 cities or larger) might not have an alternative.

There are smaller places that might not have an alternative and there are really small places where said business doesn't exist at all. That doesn't mean that someone's at fault.

To put it simple, any human interaction is a compromise of your personal rights. By being in the position of power, you can by default trample the other person's right more than he can do with yours. People have traits that are either impossible or almost impossible to change, so to be discriminated by those can severly hinder them from living a normal life.

Nobody is required to deal with you. If they want to ignore you, then so be it. The state is there to make sure that you don't die, everybody else has no obligations towards you.

People with previlege is quite prone to want to keep them as the default position, even while knowing that it damages for others. Those friendly Swiss males took ages to decide that their daughters and wives should be allowed to vote. Second last canton decided it 1989, first one 1959 (30-40 years after rest of Europe). The last one got forced to accept women voting in 1990.

So what?