Weird bills are passed around legislation all the time. It is through this process that new ideas are considered and each state is able to reflect on and implement. Interestingly enough, though, some states are passing bills that seem to bring their legislature back to the 1950s.
The state of Kansas has recently considered a law that would allow non-governmental members of an institution the freedom to deny service or employment to customers suspected to be homosexual, on the basis of conflicting with religious beliefs.
This includes anything from hotels, restaurants and stores, to bakers or photographers. Naturally, this bill is seen as very problematic and one that encourages prejudiced attitudes and outlooks. The bill itself did not pass, but nevertheless it is an interesting sign of Kansas’s ideals. Surprising? Not really. This is Kansas.
Its demographic and general ideologies tend to be more conservative, which means their elected officials will likely be representatives of those philosophies, as they are entitled to be. On one hand, I understand the intention of the bill, which is supposedly aimed to give freedom to bakers, photographers and any services that don’t wish to take part in a gay wedding or adoption without penalty.
Whether or not that is okay is of course up for debate. While I personally find nothing wrong with same-sex marriage, I understand that some churches and religions do. If a person offers their own freelance services in photography or baking for weddings and that person does not support same-sex weddings, then their practice is their business.
I feel they do have the freedom to decline customers for whatever reason. They are, after all, the ones missing out on money that someone else will get. However, companies that provide simple goods and services do not have an excuse to deny service to anyone. Hotels and restaurants have one purpose: to serve their customers.
By allowing servers to use their religion to choose not to serve any “suspected homosexuals,” the bill is blatantly creating segregation. Selling services to two men or two women should not in any way constitute a violation of any religion, because if you are working at a job that works with the general public, you serve whomever comes to the table.
Part of working in those types of jobs is dealing with people you don’t agree with. I think everyone has dealt with someone who was difficult to work with.
As nice as it would be to be able to use religion to deny them service, it is simply part of life to interact with those people. Those are the rude ones. Same-sex couples are not doing anything abrasive or rude by sitting at a table together.
They are customers with their own ideas and their own views of life; those views are not going to come out on a restaurant bill or in a hotel reservation.
Sure, the bill leaves room for negotiation by stating that non-religious affiliated corporations have to find someone willing to participate in the service. But still, I don’t see the point in letting employees refuse service at any general establishment.
Even in the context of religion, I don’t recall any commandments that state “Thou shall not serve sinners at a restaurant.” Because in general service, you serve everyone.
By the bill’s logic, anyone suspected of prostitution, drugs, or adultery could be denied service too, as that would “go against their religion.” You might as well not work in any customer service jobs if you really feel that you are not able to serve people who live differently than you want them to.
Of course, the bill did not make it through, with even some of its senators expressing regret in their voting for it. Unfortunately it seems Idaho is taking a stab at writing a similar bill. Kansas is also writing a bill that allows teachers and parents to leave marks on children via spanking, which was also dropped.
While the dropping of these bills is a sign of social progress, the resurfacing of similar bills reveals the interesting conversations occurring in state houses.
Anthony Munoz can be contacted at amunoz@keene-equinox.com