Protecting Religious Freedom . . .

COUNT the examples of horrible design in this image. I easily get to eight.
Oh, Kansas. We're in soooo much trouble. Our state, long suffering under the weight of cliche and stereotypical critique of our people and the mindset we share has a Governor that seems heck-bent on upping the ante and pouring salt in the wound.

If you were not paying attention a week or so ago, the Supreme Court (the highest, most powerful example in our land of an entire part of four governmental system that our Governor wants to get rid of by eliminating their funding) decided that it is time we cut the double-standard crap in this country and let same sex couples have a run at marriage in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.

Yes, yes. "LOVE WINS". Or "won" . . . sorta. Maybe. True to form, those who seem to think their G-d divined that marriage was something for and only for a man and a woman ALSO believe, in a government literally built on the (typical) separation of church and state, that their G-d and religious beliefs are the same as how their governments (typical at the "local" or "county" level, no less) should rely on that G-d in issuing marriage licenses or whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . I'm being disrespectful of people and their religious views.

YEP! Sure am. But not because of the religion (I LOVE my religion and faith and would FIGHT you over it) but because these people can't compartmentalize. They can't understand that what is most precious to them might not even matter to or rule over others. More importantly they can't understand that LOVE is the driving motivator behind gay marriage advocates. They don't "get" that living and letting live is the key to following the "golden rule" (do unto others, for the record).

"Our" esteemed Governor has decided to use his office (that we, the people of Kansas were short-sighted enough to let him have not once but TWICE) to issue an executive order to "protect" religious freedom. So he has issued a long, drawn out, overly-self-indulgent piece of executive order CRAP yesterday. For NO apparent reason other than because he can't stay focused on the actual wants, needs, and emergencies in this state and the true problems our state faces long enough to NOT be him and be stubborn on his personal, small-minded agenda that empowers the few and punishes the many.

And the very notion that "we" (his statement indirectly states that we Kansans are ALL on board with this closed-minded, fear-driven, misguided stuff) are all more worried about empowering business owners and clergy to opt-out than we are the basic privilege of open-minded, loving, passionate adults to opt-in.

And maybe "we" are. Maybe it is 51% this or 51% that but where is the data on that? Where is the public outcry of the masses? Where is the crush of noise and voices? Where? NOwhere. That is "where". And yet here we are . . . once again going on the record as being small-minded absurdists.

And for WHAT?! So the owner of a bakery can REFUSE to make a few hundred bucks selling a cake to people he doesn't know/have context to their love? Can he also refuse a couple that gives him a bad vibe? Can he refuse a woman with a neck tattoo? Can he determine their marriage won't last (divorce is a sin in some versions of G-d's Rules) and refuse to make dessert for their sham party? No. No. and, um, no. And since WHEN do bakers have SOOOO much business that they can't take on the gay cakes? When did bakers get so successful that turning away business was a demand of the profession? I'm not saying they are all desperate and hard up nor am I saying that I would want to work with or for people and causes I don't believe in but I'm also fully acknowledging that if I provided a service with six degrees of separation (what do florists POSSIBLY care becomes of their crafts once they leave the shop?) I would not let that get in the way of me making money and succeeding as an entrepreneur.

More over HOW does the refusal to bake a cake (as, again, one of many examples that I could choose) PROTECT the religion? Or how does baking it threaten it? Does the bouncer at the gates of heaven say "Nah, man. You once baked a cake for a coupla-lesbians. Go to the end of the line."? Does the minister that Sunday, in his fanciest robes and at the pulpit, say "Do you smell what I smell, my fellow sheep? I smell a cake baked for two homosexuals who wanted to make their love official. You'll have to leave NOW, bakery owner."?

Forget the slippery slope argument where, in time, bakery owners can refuse to make cakes for fat kid's birthday parties or when minorities can't drink at a bar, etc. I don't even think "this" really makes the way for "that". Just keep it exactly what it is - the flawed, embarrassing notion that anything is "protected" in this executive order.

I'm rambling. I know that I'm either preaching to the choir or shouting at those who would not listen to me but I'm also compelled to say this - WE did this to us, Kansas. We elected Sam Brownback to office soooo many times including TWICE to live in Cedar Crest and be our Governor. WE empowered him. WE gave him the office and the bully pulpit and soap box and the braggadocio to show up in his stupid boots and asinine belt buckles and to sit (or stand) and make declarations like this one. WE screwed up so badly that - as far as he or anyone else needs to know - WE all feel this way.

Now go order up a slice of gay cake and try to keep it and eat it to. And PLEASE, the rest of the world, know that this Governor never, ever, ever, ever, EVER speaks for me. I am not part of his "we" or "us".