Imagine going into a government building for a service and the clerk refuses to serve you because the way you live your life goes against what they believe, or walking up to a business and seeing a sign on the door saying they refuse service to you because they don't have the same religious views as you. This is what citizens of Kansas were facing when the 'religious freedom' bill was introduced there in early 2014 which would allow government employees to refuse service to gay couples or allow a business to put up a sign stating they don't service anyone LGBT. According to the New York Times "The bill proposed in this year's session seemed to further in explicitly allowing any individual to raise a religious objection in refusing to recognize same-sex couples or provide them with services." In her article, Kirsten Powers compares what the LGBT community would face to Jim Crow laws, that segregated white Americans and African Americans by signs. Kirsten Powers does a great job of illustrating her argument and convincing her audience how big of a step back in history we would go by allowing these types of bills to become law, using a little bit of pathos, mostly ethos, and no logos at all.
Powers starts off her article calling out Kansas saying "What is wrong with Kansas?" Starting off the argument in a very direct but emotionally charged way. She grabs the readers attention and goes right into what she thinks is wrong with what Kansas law makers are trying to accomplish. Then she takes the argument and turns it back onto the supporters, making them look very much like hypocrites. She says "Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married. Jesus calls his followers to be servants to all." This allows her to persuade her audience using ethos that just because you are Christian doesn't mean you should be allowed to legally discriminate.
To put the finishing touch on the article she uses pathos towards the end to establish authority on what she is writing. She interviews Adam Hamilton, pastor of the United Methodist Church of Resurrection and Evangelical Pastor, Andy Stanley who runs North Point Ministries. Both men spoke out against the bills and what they stand for giving examples of how Jesus taught his followers to service others, just as he did no matter what anyone believed and how different Jesus' beliefs were to the rest of the world in his time but yet he still died on the cross for everyone. Both of these perspectives allows the audience to not only believe that these pastors do indeed have the authority to speak on the subject, but also gain their trust.
What I didn't find in this article is any use of logos. There were no mention of statistics or polls on how other Americans or Christians viewed this type of legislature. I'm sure polls of this type of information do exist but it didn't take anything away from this article by not including them. She did an excellent job just using ethos and pathos and was able to get her point across with just those. It was the first article I have read on the subject that combated what the advocates of these bills want using the same reasoning and belief system as them.
Works Cited
Eligan, John. "In Kansas, Right Joins Left to Halt Bills on Gays." New York Times. New York Times, 16 February 2014. Web. 29 September 2014.
Powers, Kirsten. "Gay Men and Lesbians now Face Jim Crow Laws." USA Today. USA Today, 19 February 2014. Web. 29 September 2014.
