Unsurprising, personally.

Sucks super hardcore, but I'm not surprised.

no, no Kansas.

Humanity is sposed to be moving forward.

forward

I don't think they heard me.

Can we just... burn down Kansas?

I can't believe that one of the first places to get Google Fiber is filled with the kind of people who are barely advanced enough to Google "fiber."

It looks like we aren't in Kansas anymore.

I wasn't mad until the part about government agencies' discrimination being codified into law.

Because, like, if people have to 'take their business somewhere else' in the private sector, that's *good* for us all. That runs the bigots into the ground or, better, forces them to reach Zen enlightenment on their own terms. It forces citizens to take an active role in dictating what's okay and what's not -- and I like that. That's freedom and market and all that good shit. And discrimination too, but if you think you can thought-control people into tolerance by passing anti-discrimination laws..... I mean, how's that been working out so far?

But this shit right here.

the new law permits government employees to deny service to gays in the name of “religious liberty.”

is un-fucking-acceptable. To which my first reaction is, 'that can't possibly be what the law says, nobody could've thought that was a good idea.' (part of the reason I react that way is, the article is heavily editorialized). But since I don't have the information I'll just start out pissed off, and set the bar for my research to overcome that. I'll be back when I read up.

Here's the bill.

1. It's definitely crafted in a pro-liberty way.
2. Everything up through Section 2-d, and everything after, seems pretty reasonable.That doesn't mean that the people ultimately invoking the law are being reasonable, but this is a perfectly valid thing to have on the books.
3. Section 2-d, since I know none of you shits are going to click the link, reads as follows:

(d) If 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.

4. This section, while seemingly written with the rights of gov. employees in mind, is irresponsible and needs to be amended. The bill must be crafted in such a way that emergency/police/medical services, and other basic human/citizen rights/privileges, can't be denied. Which it almost does, but it falls unacceptably short.

mdk said I wasn't mad until the part about government agencies' discrimination being codified into law.

That's just about where I stand as well. It's one thing to allow individuals in the private sector to express their own beliefs. It's another entirely for the government to alienate a certain group from within it's citizens. Religion or no religion, government employees have a duty to take care of all citizens - the moment the line between Church and State becomes blurred.. We're fucked.

BrobyDDark said Can we just... burn down Kansas?

I'm down. Or just eject them from the union. I can think of one or two other states I wouldn't mind doing the same to.

And while we're at it, let's give Puerto Rico a star. Those poor guys have been batting in the Minors forever

FortunesFaded said
That's just about where I stand as well. It's one thing to allow individuals in the private sector to express their own beliefs. It's another entirely for the government to . Religion or no religion, government employees have a duty to take care of citizens - the moment the line between Church and State becomes blurred.. We're fucked.I'm down. Or just eject them from the union. I can think of one or two other states I wouldn't mind doing the same to.And while we're at it, let's give Puerto Rico a star. Those poor guys have been batting in the Minors

I know next to nothing about Puerto Rico, but do they -want- to be part of the United States?
I recall a claim that some of the territories disliked the idea..?

Tick said
I know next to nothing about Puerto Rico, but do they -want- to be part of the United States?I recall a claim that some of the territories disliked the idea..?

The most recent poll I've seen says about 55% of Puerto Rico citizens favor statehood. Granted, the territory isn't faring so well economically, but I actually think becoming a state could help with that. Many of their skilled labor force is emigrating to the continental U.S., and may feel compelled to move back should the territory become a state and receive federal benefits.

Wait til they have to start paying taxes.