Contact Us


« Vote on big business tax cut expected later this week | Main | The lights are much brighter there »

February 06, 2007


famous mortimer

SB 266 in Missouri is nearly identical:

SB 266 - This act prohibits discrimination based upon a person's sexual orientation. Such discrimination includes unlawful housing practices, denial of loans or other financial assistance, denial of membership into an organization relating to the selling or renting of dwellings, unlawful employment practices, and denial of the right to use public accommodations.

This act defines "sexual orientation" as male or female heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality by inclination, practice, identity or expression, or having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one's biological gender.

The act also specifies that discrimination includes cases where unfair treatment results from the guilty party's mere assumptions about the victim?s characteristics of race, religion, etc., whether or not such assumptions are true or false.

The bill was sponsored by Sen. Joan Bray from St. Louis and co-sponsored by eight other Senators.


"She also said giving gay Kansans legal protection from discrimination would "fly in the face of a lot of beliefs people have" about the morality of homosexuality."

Wow! I'm surprised such an idiotic argument could come from a Democrat ... but then we are talking about Kansas so all bets are off.

The same "moral" arguments were used against civil rights for African-Americans back in the '50s and '60s. Bigots cited Bible verses then (such as Noah's son, Ham, and his descendants being cursed to servitude) as justification for segregation and discrimination. Those arguments were wrong then when used to discriminate on the basis of race and they are wrong now when they are used to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

famous mortimer

Apparently the morality of homosexuality carries with it an importance greater than the morality of discrimination.


"Should discrimination against gays be made illegal?"

Only when it applies to government.

famous mortimer

that makes no sense


"that makes no sense"

That's ok. Neither does seeking special class status because of what you like to have sex with.

famous mortimer

So Nick if you were to work at an business where your sexual preference was the minority and your employment was terminated because of who you did or did not have sex with, then that's ok with you? You shouldn't have any legal protection?

Neither does seeking special class status because of whichever supreme-being fairy-tale you belive in.


kayceewolf, well said indeed!

I've been saying it, writing it and otherwise spreading the assertion for nearly a quarter century now that you cannot argue in support of discrimination against a homosexual without invoking the Bible or other teachings of religion. Based on the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom of association, such discrimination is therefore unconstitutional by definition. This in turn is why some religious bigots and those championing the anti-freedom of association agenda have sought to write discrimination into the Constitution.

Good for Kansas. Our society is indeed changing for the better and at a pace far faster than I would have thought when I first became involved in the Gay Rights Movement in 1983. One day, our homosexual friends will be treated no differently in the work place, in housing and in life crises than are my beloved wife and I are. In fact, acceptance is greater now than ever in my workplace and in the schools my daughter attend.

This is what America is about...and this is what Democracy looks like!

Long live freedom of religion and freedom of association!

PS: Yes, even bigoted Democrats can say moronic things as is evidenced above by Rep. Paul's comments above.
PPS: Anyone heard from Fred Phelps on this? hahahahahahaha.....


I have a business. I have customers. You may not creep them out. No matter how wonderfully special you think you are.

If you think I am going to hire you based in any way, on what, or who, you want to live with, guess again.

If you decide, I, or any of my customers need to know what, or who, you are sleeping with, you're fired, end of subject.

If you want to come to work dressed as a woman, but sporting the basic equipment and baritone voice of a man, you're fired, end of subject.

The very thought that I should give special consideration to someone based on the fact that he likes other men's butts, is completely and totally ridiculous.

Last but not least, if you think for one minute I am ever going to support a legal recourse for you to force me, or anyone else to keep you employed, because you think you have the right to celebrate any of the above, you're obviously too disillusioned to maintain gainful employment anywhere.

I really would have thought you might have learned a lesson about trying to shove your agenda down the throats of others. The last time you tried it, it cost you gay marriage by an incredible margin. This too will come back to haunt your cause.


"Neither does seeking special class status because of what you like to have sex with."

Just curious, but does Nick think that the only time gay people are, well, "gay" is when they are engaging in sex with their choice of partners? That's as idiotic as claiming that Nick as a heterosexual (assuming he is, of course) is only "straight" when he's engaging in sex with his wife/girlfriend/concubine/female du noir.

Sexual orientation - gay or straight - is an identity that goes far beyond the minutes out of a normal week when a person is actually taking part in sexual activity.

Apparently Nick has a severe homophobic problem. He clearly doesn't have an issue with lesbians, just gay men and their butts.

Why don't you just post a "NO GAYS ALLOWED" sign on the door of your buisness Nick, that way you won't have to worry about taking money from any gay and lesbian customers.


"I have a business. I have customers. You may not creep them out. No matter how wonderfully special you think you are."

Why don't you enlighten us with the name of your business so those of us who don't share your Neanderthal beliefs won't ever make the mistake of doing business with you and potentially "creeping you out"? So, pray tell, Nicki, what kind of business do you operate? Lawn mowing? Road kill removal? Septic tank cleaner?

famous mortimer

My agenda is only that all men and women are created equal and must be treated so.

famous mortimer

Nick, how many people do you employ?


Just curious, but does Nick think that the only time gay people are, well, "gay" is when they are engaging in sex with their choice of partners?

I don't give a damn when you're gay. If you bring it to work, you're fired. It's that simple.



I wouldn't sweat nick, his way of thinking and his ilk. While I dismiss thoughts like his without a second of contemplation, he has every right to hate anyone he wishes to hate...just as members of the KKK have their right to think the way they do. You cannot legislate how people think.

However, our nation has for more than two decades now continued to legally codify protections for homosexuals against discriminatory behavior and crimes of hate. This trend will continue. My daughters' generation has virtually no hint of nick's vile views and that is good. If you think the Gay Rights Movement has progressed over the past 20 years you ain't seen nothin' yet!

Alas, kayceewolfe, bigotry is slowly dying off one generation at a time. I have been around long enough to see first hand that it IS happening.

Down with bigotry! Don't teach hate!


Apparently Nick has a severe homophobic problem. He clearly doesn't have an issue with lesbians, just gay men and their butts.

Nick doesn't have a homophobic problem. Nick recognizes that sexual preferences belong outside the work place and not in it. You do not get special treatment for it. Like it or not.

you appear to be a little slow, so I'll try to explain it to you. No one is saying you can't fire someone because of improper or unproffessional conduct in front of customers or other employees. No one is forcing you to give special consideration to anyone. The point of the law is, for instance, to protect an otherwise exemplary employee for being fired only because they are gay.


"If you bring it to work, you're fired. It's that simple."

So does that mean that straight employees aren't allowed to wearing wedding rings or put pictures of their spouses on their desk since those things only serve to flaunt their heterosexual lifestyle?

Gotta be totally fair, Nickster. If one side can't flaunt, neither can the other.

Nick, do you ask your employees if they are gay? Do you, based on their behavior, appearance or voice patterns, assume someone is gay? And then, "set them straight" as far as what you "expect". It appears the Snickers commercial was your kind of thing. Correct?

Ted Haggard is now saying after three weeks of therapy, he is a heterosexual? Do you think that is possible?

"Nick doesn't have a homophobic problem."

Actually Nick has a racist and homophobic problem.


That's just stupid Kaycee. Of course they can wear a wedding ring, as long as they are not working on machinery that could grab onto it. No pictures for anyone.

Anonymous: Everyone gets the same speech. Personal life stays at home, period. If you can't keep it there on a given day, stay there with it, I don't need you. End of Subject.

Now, if Joe the cashier comes to work for 6 months dressed as Joe the cashier, then suddenly changes into Minnie the Pearl and speaking falsetto, we've got a problem.


Who's ted haggard?

Y'all should leave nick alone.

Everyone knows that NO ONE is looking to legalize gay sex (or straight sex) on the counter at nick's laundromat or car wash or whatever it is he runs for his bigger more successful and extrenely attractive older hunky brother. It will still be illegal for anyone to show their butt to nick at work...even the cute little female babysitter who sometimes works the late shift after school.

You can't reason with hate any more than you can 'win' an argument with a four-year old.

Trust me, I know...I have tried...with both.


Have you ever noticed the more homophobic a man is the more repulsive his physical appearance, even to women? It's true!!

The comments to this entry are closed.