Further Response to Rick

But, first, thanks to Tom Berg for his illuminating posting.

In my first response to Rick (here), I wrote:   "I cannot myself discern any plausible such rationale.  If you can, Rick, then we have the beginning of a conversation."  I meant this to serve as an invitation to Rick to specify the rationale or rationales (for the differential treatment at issue in the Kansas case) that Rick finds plausible.

In his response to me (here), Rick wrote that he "believes ... that ... plausible, 'non-hating' rationales exist for such legislation."  But Rick didn't indicate what those plausible rationales are.  I am not skeptical about the existence of non-hating rationales.   I  *am* skeptical that the non-hating rationales are plausible.   Bear in mind that the legislation at issue here is the legislation that the Kansas Supreme Court unanimously struck down and about which Tom Berg wrote in his posting.

Let me be more precise in my invitation to Rick:

Please specify the rationale or rationales that you believe provide plausible grounding for the Kansas legislation at issue here.
_______________
mp