Oh, those crazy guys and gals in the Kansas state legislature. You can hardly leave them alone for a minute or two and they go do something that can make us a laughingstock nationwide. Leave them alone for a week and they can set the state back a century.

This week, the House was debating Bill 2453. Anticipating that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule that forbidding same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, they decided that they had to do something.

This bill proposes to make it legal to refuse service to same-sex couples on the basis of religious beliefs.

The example that was given was that a professional photographer should be able to refuse to shoot a same-sex wedding. This may not seem like a big deal. I mean, who would want to have a wedding photographer who spent the whole ceremony trying to suppress his gag reflex over the idea of a same-sex couple?

The economics of the whole thing might sort itself out eventually. Some photographers would see same-sex marriages as a new revenue stream and actively seek that kind of business. The same for tuxedo rental shops and other wedding industry professionals. To refuse business on religious grounds might prove a disaster in this economic climate.

On the other hand, this concept smacks of the proverbial slippery slope. The principle of refusing service on religious basis is a dangerous one. I can remember when interracial marriages were illegal in many states on religious grounds. Most states had anti-miscegenation statutes. Could a place of business now refuse service to a mixed couple on religious grounds?

Our political system is based on majority rule while preserving minority rights. This can be hard to balance in practice. There is a case before the U.S. Supreme Court which questions whether the new Obamacare regulations requiring contraception products to be included in all policies can be denied in the case of Catholic hospitals or businesses with strong religious beliefs. Whose rights should be protected, those of the institution or those of the female employees who point out that Viagra is covered and so should the birth control pills?

In very few cases have we allowed religious beliefs to exempt individuals from compliance under the law. The status of conscientious objectors in World War II and Vietnam was never really satisfactorily decided. Usually some sort of alternative service was required.

Christian Scientists are taxed to fund government health facilities from county hospitals to the National Institutes of Health, though they will most likely never use them. Hindus, Sikhs and other vegetarians by conscience pay taxes that pay for meat inspectors, agricultural research stations and the like. Pacifists such as Mennonites, Quakers and Amish have never been exempted from taxation that goes to fund the Department of Defense.

I suppose the difference is that the conservative Christians seem to be in the majority and thus in a better position to claim their religious beliefs should exempt them from the law of the land. If the states are legalizing same-sex marriage or the courts are mandating that same-sex couples be treated equally, Governor Sam and the Brownshirts are now trying to write into law the idea that businesses may discriminate if their religious values are being offended.

Of course this is not the first time. They have made stringent restrictions on facilities where abortions may be performed. They have legislated strip clubs nearly out of existence (and completely out of fun). They see their 19th century worldview slipping away but they still have a strangle hold on the Kansas Legislature.

In addition to HB2453, the legislature is up to more mischief. They want to do away with no-fault divorce. That would take us back to the 1950s and '60s. (When I was divorced in 1969, I had to admit to "extreme cruelty" just to get a simple divorce. Anything else would have involved hiring a detective or getting confined to prison or an insane asylum.)

Another bill, HB2473 seeks to wipe out the ability of municipalities to restrict open carry of a weapon. This would take us back to the 1860s. How far is far enough? When will the burning of witches be reinstated?