On Wednesday, the Kansas House of Representatives took a step back to the 1890s with a shameful bill that borrows from Jim Crow to legalize discrimination against gay couples. Approved by a vote of 72 to 49, House Bill No. 2453 would allow businesses and government employees to deny service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs. The law specifies businesses with “public accommodations,” but—in effect—that covers almost everything. 
 
 What does this mean in the real world? If you and your partner want to go buy groceries, but the owner—or manager—doesn’t “agree” with your relationship, they can refuse you service. If you want to go the movies, and the owner decides she’s uncomfortable—she can kick you out. Hotels can deny entry, gyms can deny access, and restaurants can eject you without consequence. 
 
 Obviously, some gay couples will want to sue. But under the law, anyone who turns away a gay couple is immune to a civil suit. What’s more, the couple will have to pay their opponents attorney’s fees. 
 
 On top of all of this, the bill authorizes anti-gay discrimination by anyone who works for the state of Kansas. Ambulances can refuse to come to the home of a gay couple, park managers can deny them entry, state hospitals can turn them away, and public welfare agencies can decline to work with them. Yes, the bill requires private managers and state employees to refer the couple to another person who will conduct their business, but in reality, those rules have a habit of falling by the wayside. 
 
 And while the bill is presented as a measure directed explicitly at same-sex couples, the language is much more ambiguous. One clause allows discrimination as long as the transaction is “related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement.” 
 
 There’s no way to know if a given transaction is related to a gay partnership. In most cases, there’s no way to know if someone is gay. But that doesn’t matter. Under this bill, if you believe someone is gay and purchasing something or making arrangements for the sake of a civil union or same-sex marriage, you can deny them service. Indeed, they don’t even have to be gay. Anyone suspected of working towards those ends could be subject to legalized harassment. 
 
 To put this simply, the Kansas House has just endorsed a comprehensive system of anti-gay discrimination. If it becomes law—which isn’t unlikely, given Republican control of the statehouse and governorship—it will yield a segregated world for gays and their allies, as they are forced to use businesses and other services that aren’t hostile to them. 
 
 When asked about the bill, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback told The Topeka Capital-Journal that “Americans have constitutional rights, among them the right to exercise their religious beliefs and the right for every human life to be treated with respect and dignity.” The question is whether he thinks this applies to gays. 
 
 Looking at this bill, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to call it a close cousin—if not sibling—of Jim Crow (natch, for black gays and lesbians in the state, there’s little difference). Like its Southern predecessors, this proposal is meant to isolate and stigmatize a despised minority, under of the guise of some higher priority (“religious liberty”). And while this bill doesn’t sanction violence, that was also true of Jim Crow. During the period, African Americans had legal equality under criminal law. In theory, if you beat a black person, you could be arrested and tried for assault. In practice, however, this rarely happened. Legal stigmatization fed social stigmatization (and vice versa) which led to a world where blacks were all but outside the protection of law. 
 
 Obviously, we are far from that in Kansas. But one thing is true: Wherever legal stigma of minorities is in place—separation, segregation, etc.—violence isn’t far behind. A Kansas that enshrines discrimination against gays is, implicitly, a Kansas that has declared its contempt for their lives. ||||| — A Kansas bill shielding anyone refusing to provide service to same-sex couples on religious grounds appears to be in serious jeopardy. 
 
 Senate President Susan Wagle took the unusual step Thursday night of issuing a statement saying the bill — which has drawn an avalanche of national criticism — didn’t have the support of a majority of Republicans in her chamber. 
 
 “A strong majority of my members support laws that define traditional marriage, protect religious institutions and protect individuals from being forced to violate their personal moral values,” Wagle said. 
 
 “However, my members also don’t condone discrimination.” 
 
 With fewer than half the 32 Senate Republicans supporting the bill, it would need Democratic support to pass the 40-member chamber, an unlikely prospect since Democrats are lined up against it. 
 
 Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley of Topeka applauded Wagle’s comments. 
 
 “The Kansas Legislature should never advocate discrimination of any kind based on a perceived notion of religious freedom,” Hensley said in a statement. 
 
 Wagle, however, allowed a little wiggle room for negotiation on the bill, suggesting in her statement there might be a way to find common ground. 
 
 If not, “I believe a majority of my caucus will not support the bill,” the Wichita Republican said in her statement. 
 
 The Kansas House passed the bill Wednesday, spurring a national outcry that it was tantamount to state-sanctioned discrimination. The critics gained traction on social media, where a Facebook page set up opposing the measure received nearly 40,000 “likes” by late Thursday. 
 
 Supporters said the bill was intended to address court decisions overturning bans on gay marriage in Utah and Oklahoma and, maybe, one day in Kansas. They believe the state’s ban on gay marriage is in the “cross hairs.” 
 
 They said they drew up the legislation to protect the religious liberties of anyone on either side of the same-sex marriage debate. They vehemently denied the bill was a vehicle for discrimination. 
 
 They pointed to a number of cases across the country where actions were taken against photographers, bakers and florists who refused to provide service to same-sex weddings. 
 
 Consider a few: 
 
 • A Colorado judge found last December that a baker discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake a wedding cake because he thought homosexuality was a sin. The judge said he couldn’t refuse gay couples again. 
 
 • The New Mexico Supreme Court found that a photography business that refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. The business has taken the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
 
 • Vermont innkeepers were sued in 2011 after refusing to host a lesbian couple’s wedding reception. They settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay a $10,000 civil penalty and agreeing to no longer host any weddings or receptions, according to The Associated Press. 
 
 The Kansas bill would bar legal action — government sanctions or civil suits — for people who refuse to provide services relating to marriages or civil unions that are contrary to their faith. 
 
 It would allow someone employed with the government or “nonreligious entity” to invoke their faith as a basis for not providing service. 
 
 Supporters said the bill was narrowly written to apply to the marriage ceremony. But critics said it potentially would apply to thousands of Kansas workers who might cite religious conviction to get out of performing their duties. 
 
 Rep. Charles Macheers, a Shawnee Republican, led efforts to pass the bill. Macheers told The Star earlier Thursday that the bill did not go beyond marriage. 
 
 But critics said the wording was broad and vague, opening the door for discrimination. 
 
 “The ACLU is pleased to hear that (Wagle) saw this bill for what it is,” an effort to legalize discrimination in Kansas, said Holly Weatherford, Kansas advocacy director for the American Civil Liberties Union. 
 
 “Religious liberty is alive and well in Kansas, and religion shouldn’t be used to discriminate.” 
 
 State Rep. Lance Kinzer of Olathe, who supported the bill, said it was never intended to deny general services to anyone based on sexual orientation. 
 
 He said he would support adding language ensuring there was no discrimination if that would ease fears in the Senate. 
 
 He also said he would agree to jettison another clause that has been interpreted as extending beyond marriage to private- sector employees. 
 
 The bill was a model developed by the Washington, D.C.-based American Religious Freedom Program, lawmakers said. 
 
 The project is part of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which a couple years ago encouraged legislatures to form religious freedom caucuses aimed at keeping the government from stepping on religious liberties. 
 
 The program’s legislative director testified for the bill. No one from the program could be reached for comment Thursday. ||||| Legislative leaders said Friday that a bill House supporters passed with the stated intent of protecting religious freedom will be substantially reworked after the state's business community sided with opponents who argued it promoted discrimination. 
 
 The House passed the bill 72-49 with proponents arguing it is a needed buffer for those with a "sincerely held religious belief" against same-sex marriage in advance of courts striking down Kansas' constitutional amendment banning the practice. 
 
 But a national outcry ensued after gay-rights groups contended the bill also would allow businesses and government employees to deny a broad range of services to same-sex couples. 
 
 Senate President Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, said that as soon as the House passed the bill to her chamber, business leaders weighed in with concerns it would weaken state laws that allow them to hire and fire employees at will. 
 
 "This bill negatively impacts both small and large businesses," Wagle said, adding that she had sent it to the Senate Judiciary Committee for a thorough review and revisions. 
 
 Tom Witt, executive director of Equality Kansas, said his organization was glad Wagle saw potential for discrimination in the bill. 
 
 “Equality Kansas proposed amendments in the House that we believe would have made the bill more acceptable, and if the Senate chooses to move forward with hearings, we look forward to working with them to draft language that will protect the religious liberties of all Kansans, while at the same time ensuring the dignity of gay and lesbian couples across the state,” Witt said. 
 
 House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, said he supports changing the bill and will let the legislative process play out. 
 
 “I have talked to the Senate president, and we’re going to work on this together," Merrick said. "It won’t be immediately, but we’ll be working on it.” 
 
 House Bill 2453 passed the House on Wednesday, and by Friday morning a slew of business interests had weighed in against it. By that afternoon a new lobbying group, the Employers for Liberty Coalition, had been formed. 
 
 “While we believe this bill may have been brought with good intentions of protecting religious freedom, the unintended consequences far outweigh the good,” said Tom Witsman, president of the Wichita Independent Business Association. “We want Kansas to be open for business. HB 2453 limits recruiting ability for workers and the state’s ability to bring new visitors and businesses to Kansas.” 
 
 Chuck Caisley, vice president of coalition member Kansas City Power and Light, called the bill "discriminatory and also unworkable." 
 
 AT&T Kansas president Steve Hahn agreed, calling it "impossible to implement." 
 
 "The bill promotes discriminatory behavior by businesses against their customers, and it interferes with AT&T's management of our employees," Hahn said. "It eliminates the use of fair business practices with customers in Kansas." 
 
 The Kansas Chamber, one of the state's most influential lobbying groups, said lawyers from a number of businesses found "potentially costly legal questions" within the bill and thanked Wagle for putting the brakes on it. 
 
 Business concerns were raised when the House voted on the bill, but Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, assured the body they were "spurious." 
 
 Merrick said the bill should only be interpreted as a statement of support for religious freedom, not a license to discriminate. But he acknowledged "it is increasingly apparent that the language of the bill can be interpreted in different ways." 
 
 Three House Democrats voted for the legislation, and Equality Kansas criticized House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, despite his "no vote" for what it felt was a lukewarm defense of LGBT Kansans. 
 
 But the vast majority of the "yes" votes came from House Republicans, and Merrick said members of his caucus were "getting beat up" online and in phone messages. When asked if the bill would pass the House in its current form again he said "probably not." 
 
 "With as much heat as (is) being put on them, it would probably back some people off," Merrick said. 
 
 Much of the heat has fallen on Rep. Charles Macheers, R-Shawnee, who carried the bill on the House floor. But Merrick said the author was "probably" Kinzer. 
 
 Kinzer and other bill supporters also scuttled an amendment to remove government workers from the bill. Rep. Emily Perry, D-Mission, said during a committee hearing she worried that a portion of the bill was so broad it could allow police officers to refuse to respond to domestic abuse calls involving gay couples. 
 
 Wagle said she can’t support it if public employees remain in the bill. 
 
 "I believe when you hire a police officer or fireman, they have no choice who they serve," Wagle said. "They serve anyone who's vulnerable." 
 
 Merrick said he agreed and government employees should be removed. 
 
 Merrick said "the buck stops" with him and took responsibility for bringing the legislation up for a floor vote, saying he thought it was ready. But when asked about HB 2453 and other bills regarding social issues, Merrick said it would be instructive to remind House members of one of "Ray's rules." 
 
 "If it's not helping the state economically, why are we doing it?" Merrick said.
– A controversial bill in Kansas that gives individuals and businesses the right to refuse service to gay people on religious liberty grounds looks to be doomed, reports the Kansas City Star. The measure—read it in full here—passed the Republican-controlled House and immediately triggered howls of protest from around the nation. In the Daily Beast, for example, Jamelle Bouie writes that it's not a stretch to liken it to Jim Crow laws. "Like its Southern predecessors, this proposal is meant to isolate and stigmatize a despised minority, under of the guise of some higher priority ('religious liberty')." But the measure doesn't appear to have a chance in the state Senate. Its Republican president, Susan Wagle, said that while her members "support laws that define traditional marriage," they "don't condone discrimination." What's more, the state's business community also sided with opponents, reports the Topeka Capital-Journal, which says the legislation will have to be "substantially reworked." (In Virginia, meanwhile, a judge struck down the state's ban on gay marriages.)