Sam Brownback Resigns

[1972Shocker]

to become religious-freedom ambassador.

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article163840318.html

[BOBB]

to become religious-freedom ambassador.

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-...163840318.html

Tremendous. I hope he is successful in promoting religious freedom.

Maybe Trump could become an ambassador of executive leadership and likewise resign. 42 months of Pence doesn't sound so bad.

[Aargh]

I don't know how "religious freedom" is defined or handled through the State Department, but in Kansas it was a euphemism for eliminating gay rights and gay marriage.

[SHOCKvalue]

I don't know how "religious freedom" is defined or handled through the State Department, but in Kansas it was a euphemism for eliminating gay rights and gay marriage.

You can at once be fine with gay marriage, while at the same time against the arm of big government reaching into a house of worship and compelling them to perform such. Not sure why that distinction is so hard for some to grasp. Cliff notes: See Libertarianism.

[wufan]

I don't know how "religious freedom" is defined or handled through the State Department, but in Kansas it was a euphemism for eliminating gay rights and gay marriage.

I'm 100% behind religious freedom and gay marriage from a government perspective. I believe that this is the proper way for the government to behave. I have moral disagreements to these practices, but I do not believe it is my place, nor the governments place to intercede. @Aargh:, if the government is working to limit personal freedoms under the umbrella of religious freedom, then point it out and I will fight it with you!

[jdshock]

You can at once be fine with gay marriage, while at the same time against the arm of big government reaching into a house of worship and compelling them to perform such. Not sure why that distinction is so hard for some to grasp. Cliff notes: See Libertarianism.

Why would a libertarian support a new law that explicitly allows an organization to do something (e.g., a school can't stop funding a religious group that discriminates against LGBT folks, or something)? If the constitution actually protects such behavior through the First Amendment, what's the point of the law? And if it's not protected by the First Amendment, why should the "arm of big government" be in the business of creating new laws like this? Not picking a fight here. Legitimately just curious.

[wufan]

Why would a libertarian support a new law that explicitly allows an organization to do something (e.g., a school can't stop funding a religious group that discriminates against LGBT folks, or something)? If the constitution actually protects such behavior through the First Amendment, what's the point of the law? And if it's not protected by the First Amendment, why should the "arm of big government" be in the business of creating new laws like this? Not picking a fight here. Legitimately just curious.

I don't understand this one. What law is being hypothetically created against the first amendment?

[jdshock]

I don't understand this one. What law is being hypothetically created against the first amendment?

I don't know what they're specifically talking about. Aargh says Brownback used religious freedom to discriminate against LGBT folks. SV says you can support both and want the government wholly uninvolved.

I'm just asking if the government should be uninvolved, why should we support the passage of a new law? The law I proposed is one Brownback supported which said post-secondary schools can't stop funding a religious group just because they don't want to let in LGBT folks.

There are only a couple of options: 1. Schools already couldn't stop funding religious groups for this reason because of religious freedom protections under the First Amendment or 2. those religious groups weren't protected by the First Amendment.

If it's 1., what is the point in passing a law? The First Amendment already protects the religious group. We don't need a new law, so my thought is a libertarian would oppose any unnecessary new legislation. If it's 2., it's not constitutionally protected, and we're establishing a new law that allows groups to discriminate against LGBT folks with no constitutional basis, so my thought is a libertarian would oppose new government overreach into this area.

But, like I said, I'm just asking, and I'm open to an explanation.

[wufan]

I would agree that no new law would be needed to protect religious groups. One of the more interesting debates around religious freedom is whether or not private institutions should be forced provide birth control as ACA health insurance to its employees.

[MoValley John]

I would agree that no new law would be needed to protect religious groups. One of the more interesting debates around religious freedom is whether or not private institutions should be forced provide birth control as ACA health insurance to its employees.

They shouldn't. Furthermore, birth control isn't expensive, buy it yourself. The most expensive pills are less than $600/yr, not a big deal especially if you're employed. Oh wait, you are, the debate is over mandating employee coverage. And if you are truely poor, your county health department already provides it at a free or reduced cost, this is really no big deal. And if you can't afford a condom, maybe you can't afford to be pokin' around in the whiskers in the first place. I don't think boning the old lady is a constitutionally protected activity.

This whole debate is dumb.

[Aargh]

I love irony.

Brownback wouldn't let Kansas expand Medicaid because Brown back opposes big government. This has cost Kansas working on $2 billion.

Brownback is now taking a big government job that he helped create when he was in Congress.