" />

The Moderate Voice

An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right


You are here: Home / Featured / Kansas bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples: final nail in Republican rebranding coffin?

Kansas bill allowing refusal of service to same-sex couples: final nail in Republican rebranding coffin?

by 9 Comments

shutterstock_12072184 (1)Quick. Schedule an autopsy for the Republican political autopsy.

Republican rebranding is now virtually dead.

The final nail is now in its coffin, and if the coffin isn’t totally now totally closed, another nail to make sure it never opens up (no action on immigration reform) will be pounded in in due course. Republican rebranding was doomed from the start due to the influence of the Tea Party and the party’s talk radio political culture — and the talk radio political wing — which has battled to keep the party veering away from its 21st century-conservatism style and agenda.

The final nail came yesterday in a bill passed by the Republican-dominated house that allows denying services to same sex-couples — a bill that looks as if it will provide ample opportunity for those who seek to use it to interpret it broadly. The bill is expected to be signed by Gov. Sam Brownback, who has helped veer a state long considered more moderate to 21st century conservatism. One possibility: the bill could die in the Kansas Senate.

But, even then, some damage to the GOP’s image that led to the discussion about the need for rebranding will be done.

This also fits a pattern: the national party in the political autopsy and some of its official rhetoric suggests the party needs to be more inclusive and expand its tent. But in Kansas as in some other states, Republican Governors and legislatures are moving the states further right and under fire for such activities such as voter suppression to prevent groups that traditionally vote Democratic from voting or, at best, easily voting.

CNN gave this clinical report on the vote for the bill which will be most assuredly signed into law:

Denying services to same-sex couples may soon become legal in Kansas.

House Bill 2453 explicitly protects religious individuals, groups and businesses that refuse services to same-sex couples, particularly those looking to tie the knot.
It passed the state’s Republican-dominated House on Wednesday with a vote of 72-49, and has gone to the Senate for a vote.

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 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.”

The law is seen by some as nothing short of catastrophic: an anti-gay segregation law that will proactively make same-sex couples targets for discriminatory practices that would get officials and citizens in hot legal water in other states. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern does not mince words:

The result will mark Kansas as the first state, though certainly not the last, to legalize segregation of gay and straight people in virtually every arena of life.

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.

The Week’s Josh Terbush notes the impact on rebranding (disastrous):

Though party leaders have indicated they want to move forward on the issue, some members are pulling the party back to a less tolerant time.

In the latest instance, Kansas’ Republican-dominated House of Representatives this week passed a bill that would allow individuals, businesses, and other entities to refuse to serve gay couples if it would be “contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill explicitly extends protection to those who decline to provide for gay couples “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.”

Critics have assailed it as an “anti-gay segregation” measure. Indeed, the bill — which is expected to pass the Senate and be signed into law by Gov. Sam Brownback — would codify discrimination against an entire group of people.

Kansas already bans same-sex marriage, so the provision may seem unnecessary. But a handful of courts have recently struck down state-level bans, and the bill’s backers fret that, in the absence of explicit legal protection, those who deny services to gay couples could get sued.

And he notes:

Still, the dissonance between the two camps further underscores the GOP’s broader ideological divide. And it calls attention to the vocal influence of its more regressive, unflattering corners, further hindering the party’s attempt to broaden its appeal to younger voters, many of whom are gravitating en masse to the Democrats because of social issues like gay marriage.

…Embracing gay marriage is one thing. But if the GOP can’t bring itself to extend discrimination protection to gays — and in one case is even encouraging such discrimination — then it will have problems connecting with younger voters for a long time to come.

But the threat to the GOP is even greater.

On a variety of issues the Republican Party seems stuck in a time warp, unable to nudge itself out of Baby Boomer era divisions and resentments and polarizing political polemics. In sheer, political smarts, given the rise of demographic groups the party has alienated and the disconnect between it and most younger voters, the Republican Party seems not only stuck on marriage equality but often also stuck on THIS.

A year ago Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was suggesting his party needed to be more moderate, and not be the “stupid” party.

Now he’s saying this:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal blasted the “silent war” that he said is undermining the nation’s basic principles in a major speech Thursday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Contrary to what liberals say, the Constitution was set up specifically for believers, Jindal, a Catholic who converted from Hinduism, said.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama’s Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

“The American people, whether they know it or not, are mired in a silent war,” said Jindal, who is widely expected to run for president in 2016.

“It’s a war against the propositions in the Declaration of Independence: It is a war against the spirit that motivated abolitionism: It is a war against the faith that motivated the Civil Rights struggle: It is a war against the soul of countless acts of charity: It is a war against the conscience that drives social change: It is a war against the heart that binds our neighborhoods together: It is a war against America’s best self, at America’s best moment.

“It is a war — a silent war — against religious liberty.”

“This war is waged in our courts and in the halls of political power. It is pursued with grim and relentless determination by a group of like-minded elites, determined to transform the country from a land sustained by faith into a land where faith is silenced, privatized and circumscribed.”

It’s the same Bobby Jindal of a year ago. But it’s after a year of holding his finger up and sensing which way the Republican political winds — hurricane force — are blowing.

Rebranding is also going totally under for two other reasons.

1. The fizzling of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: He had been the great hope of those who thought the party could have a different face than cookie-cutter, far right conservatism. Bridgegate and its associated political muck will likely undercut if eliminate Christie, and if he does run he’ll likely more than ever woo the party’s right. A ticket headed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Tex. Sen. Ted Cruz, or Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul would be more brand reaffirmation than rebranding.

The second aspect of the Christie fizzle is this: it’s clear that what voters and the press saw as reality about Christie was not true — even to the extent that a piece in The New Republic titled “Chris Christie’s Entire Career Reeks It’s Not Just the Bridge” details how in public he seemed to battle the state’s political machine but in private rose with the cooperation of the state’s big bosses.

Christie’s own branding is down the tubes.

2. The rejection of immigration reform. George Will warns:

Distilled to their discouraging essence, Republicans’ reasons for retreating from immigration reform reflect waning confidence in American culture and in the political mission only Republicans can perform — restoring U.S. economic vigor. Without this, the nation will have a dismal future only Democrats can relish: government growing in order to allocate scarce opportunity.

Many Republicans say addressing immigration will distract from a winning focus on Obamacare. But a mature party avoids monomania, and Obamacare’s manifold defects are obvious enough that voters will not require nine more months of reminders.

Many Republicans say immigration policy divides their party. If, however, the party becomes a gaggle of veto groups enforcing unanimities, it will become what completely harmonious parties are: small.

In fact, trending suggests that is what is happening to the Republican Party: it’s becoming party of enforcing unanimities that wants to move to a smaller tent than it had 20 years ago — with a scowling bouncer making certain elements don’t get in.

MUST READ: Andrew Sullivan:

The bill that just overwhelmingly passed the Kansas House of Representatives is quite something. You can read it in its entirety here. It is premised on the notion that the most pressing injustice in Kansas right now is the persecution some religious people are allegedly experiencing at the hands of homosexuals. As Rush Limbaugh recently noted, “They’re under assault. You say, ‘Heterosexuality may be 95, 98 percent of the population.’ They’re under assault by the 2 to 5 percent that are homosexual.”

AND:

If the Republican Party wanted to demonstrate that it wants no votes from anyone under 40, it couldn’t have found a better way to do it. Some critics have reacted to this law with the view that it is an outrageous new version of Jim Crow and a terrifying portent of the future for gays in some red states. It is both of those. It’s the kind of law that Vladimir Putin would enthusiastically support. But it is also, to my mind, a fatal mis-step for the movement to keep gay citizens in a marginalized, stigmatized place.

AND:

If I am confident that this law is, in fact, a huge miscalculation by the far right, I do not mean to discount the very real intimidation and fear that many gay Kansans and their friends and families are experiencing right now. It’s appalling that any government should seek to place itself institutionally hostile to an entire segment of society. But in civil rights movements, acts of intemperate backlash are also opportunities. If this bill becomes law, and gay couples are fired or turned away from hotels or shown the door at restaurants and denied any recourse to the courts, the setback to the anti-gay movement could be severe, even fatal. Yes, of course this bill should never have seen the light of day. But now it has, that light will only further discredit the discriminators. Even they know this, hence the unhinged rationale for the entire bill: “Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful … It has no place in civilized society.”

It sure doesn’t. And that’s why the predictable silence on conservative blogs and news sites is so telling. This is about Kansas, but it is also about the Republican party. Are there any Republicans willing to oppose this new strategy? Do the GOP’s national leaders support it? As for Democrats and the left more generally, they are lucky in their enemies. But the gay rights movement, it seems to me, should tread a careful path. We should be wary of being seen to trample on religious freedom and be defined as discriminators of another sort. Allowing space for those in society whose religious convictions make homosexuality anathema, even Satanic, is what true liberals do. And to my mind, a better approach for gay couples and their families is not to try and coerce fundamentalist individuals and businesses into catering to them, but in publicizing the cases of discrimination and shaming them – and then actively seeking out and rewarding individuals and businesses who are not so constrained.

Those are only excerpts. Go back and read it in its entirety.