Talk:Kansas House Bill 2453

Neutrality?
This article seems very bias. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 03:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Biased, you mean? How so? Rivertorch (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, biased, sorry. Well I was hoping it was obvious, but let's start at the beginning with the most obvious part. "that would use religious liberty to justify discrimination against same-sex couples" seems VERY much opinion (and personally I'm very against this bill so I actually agree with this text. it still doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia though). The rest of it seems to talk only about criticism of the bill. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 14:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I wrote that sentence to replace the very awkwardly-worded one that was there before. Based on what I read in several reliable sources and on the text of the bill itself, my wording seemed accurate to me, but I wrote it in rather a hurry. If you are able to improve it, please do. Or if you'd prefer to discuss your proposed wording here on the talk page first, that's fine too. While I guess it's nice to know that you don't favor discriminating against folks, your personal views on the bill don't really matter; the neutrality of the article does. So have at it! Rivertorch (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about the way the current version reads:"Kansas House Bill 2453, also known as the Religious Freedom Act, is a piece of legislation proposed in the state of Kansas that would allow people to avoid being forced to provide services in any way related to a same-sex relationship under the name 'marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement' if their objection to doing so is based on their religious beliefs."The phrase "forced to provide services" doesn't quite hit the mark, in my opinion. Would examples of being "forced to provide services" include things like restaurants being expected to provide food to paying customers with pro-marriage-equality bumper stickers on their cars? Or firefighters being expected to extinguish blazes at the homes of same-sex couples who had married in other states? It seems to me it might be more accurate to say that the bill would allow people to refuse service under certain circumstances. Rivertorch (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that the "forced" text of the article is not an editors word choice but part of the opinion of state rep John Bradford; which is cited in the article.  Barkeep  Chat/''' 16:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The "forced" text was mine, but I see how it could be interpreted just as far to one side as I interpreted the "refuse" text that is in the first paragraph. I attempted to insert the actual language from the Bill that uses "required" as an attempt to improve the accuracy of the information. Thanks to Barkeep for cleaning up my insertion. Like most things out there, if you read the actual language of the bill you might come away with a different view of the bill than what is presented in the MSM or here. Reading and thinking for yourself always seems to be a good thing. Stan306 Stan306 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dead legislation
Now that this legislation has died after a few days of fuss, I'd suggest that it was never a suitable subject for a WP entry. Few pieces of proposed legislation at the state level are. It was a short-lived news story. It would make a nice paragraph on LGBT rights in Kansas. I think I'll add that.

The broader story would make a very good WP entry, and some of this this material could be used there. I'm not sure what to call it. Perhaps Same-sex marriage panic of 2014? Seriously, I think it's very hard to name. See this story: In One Day, Bills Allowing Anti-LGBT Discrimination Fail In Four States. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's an important chapter, and illustrates the changing political climate on legislating against LGBT people. I could see it as part of a larger list of similar failed legislation. I do think it's notable on it's own, but it would require waiting a bit and see who cites it as impacting similar cases. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should leave this up. It appears that the Kansas legislation is being reformulated and supporters are trying to improve their ability to compete with those who oppose the bill to get their message out. Sportfan seems to be correct that it is part of a bigger discussion given the Arizona legislation and the legislation being developed in many other states. Given that the legislation is only 3 pages in length perhaps expanding the section you call "provisions" to include all of the bill or perhaps the revised language when it is brought forward again (it's in pretty simple English) could allow folks to read it right here without running off to another web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan306 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My point was that there is a larger discussion. That was the point of linking to an article that described similar legislation in 3 other states. But if other legislation is being considered, this house bill 2453 is dead and the entire subject would best be covered under a different heading, like Religious Liberties Acts or whatever, not this very very specific and already out-of-date title. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a section in Same-sex marriage in the United States would make sense? I could see mentions in several articles, but still think this and the others might be fine left as, at least for now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an article to be made I think, I'm not sure of the title, State anti-LGBT and same-sex marriage legislation? If all these bills are on the basis of religion, then that should likely be emphasized as well. Maybe ask for input at LGBT project. Here's another article, States Push Anti-Gay Bills That Would Allow Businesses To Turn Away Same-Sex Couples. Sportfan5000 (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the efforts of late in AZ and KS are part of a longer history that starts with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993) invalidated by the Supreme Court in Boerne v. Flores (1997), which then spawned many attempts to pass a similar statute at the state level, which just seem to morph and focus on specific issues as context changes. A good source on the background and the increasingly expansive language of the legislation as of 2010 is HERE. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kansas House Bill 2453. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140215095337/http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/13/3287827/susan-wagle-bill-that-allows-service.html to http://www.kansas.com/2014/02/13/3287827/susan-wagle-bill-that-allows-service.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)