Whidbey News Times Bashes Senator Bailey’s Bill

Whidbey News Times’ Executive Director and Publisher, Keven R. Graves wasted no time weighing in on Senate Bill 5927 saying it was “seriously flawed.”  http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/opinion/206995691.html

Part of SB5927 is found below and a link to the full bill is provided:

(4) Nothing in this section may burden a person or religious organization’s freedom of religion including, but not limited to, the right of an individual or entity to deny services if providing those goods or services would be contrary to the individual’s or entity owner’s sincerely held religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, or matters of conscience. This subsection does not apply to the denial of services to individuals recognized as a protected class under federal law applicable to the state as of the effective date of this section.

The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, philosophical belief, or matter of conscience may not be burdened unless the government proves that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.


Unfortunately Keven R, Graves talked endlessly about gays and lesbians, and failed to see the bigger picture.

That picture goes something like this.

1. Remember the phrase “No shoes, no shirt, NO Service?”  Without SB5927 Harry Anderson, James Bruner, and Carol Anne Peschke can hire Neil Colburn from Clover Patch Café to cater their annual nude fest.  Neil Colburn wouldn’t mind.

2. Garrett Newkirk and his comrades can hold a Satanic Worship service at Oak Harbor’s Best Western, and have the concierge get them a goat for the animal sacrifice portion of their ceremony.  The concierge wouldn’t mind.

3. Steve Erickson and Marianne Edain can invite 100 of their fellow comrades over to the Crockett Estate for an orgy and have Paula Spina hand out condoms and lubricants. Paula doesn’t mind.

4. Even Keven R. Graves and the other Sound Publishing fish wrappers are in grave danger of being subjected to endless lawsuits over their discriminatory online censorship policies. Keven doesn’t mind.

Naturally any proprietor in the above scenarios would be subject to a lawsuit for refusing to provide the “goods and services” to any lawsuit happy patrons waving the “discrimination’ flag without SB5927.


  1. I remain seriously UN-convinced that Kevin Graves represents anything but a continuation of Sound Publishing’s perennial VERY left-wing-liberal-agenda-driven style of “reporting” that amounts to nothing more than “regurgitating” what well-placed propagandists feed them to say plus “editorializing” based on willful ignorance of the facts.

  2. What is so funny is that a carnival performer, often billed as a wild man, whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake can walk into a PETA sponsored animal shelter and “adopt” their unwanted chickens and PETA couldn’t do anything about it!

    1. A more accurate depiction would have the carnival performer “adopt” the chickens via phone, and have PETA deliver them to the carnival sight so the chickens could perform in the Geek Show! PETA wouldn’t mind! Ha!

  3. What a joke! Kevin Graves is what I was talking about in another discussion. These liberal pigs want to force the rest of us to accept their ideas and if we don’t ,they want to cram it down our throat. The vegan thing is the same,alot of vegans can’t stand to see someone dive into a nice bloody tenderloin,they want everyone to think it is a sin to eat meat..The gay and lesbians want us to accept their perspective on life or else…I could care less if someone has an alternative lifestyle,but by god don’t force me to like it..it is the same as…when you were a child and your parents made you eat parsnips or rutabagas they can make you eat it ,but can’t make you like it.

  4. Kevin Graves’ editorial is apparently even WORSE than Ken Wolf describes it, and Kevin Grave’s own words document that to be the case!

    In response to a reader who posted his analysis and opinion at the WNT forum – using the REAL WORLD example of a florist who refused to cater a gay wedding, a recent real-world WA State event which is DIRECTLY related to this proposed legislation – Kevin Graves responded:

    “…Actually, Jerry, you are confused and are muddling the facts. This is my first column on this subject, and I haven’t written anything about the gay couple or the business owner who declined to provide flowers for their wedding. I also haven’t been derisive of any business owners. My column is about the bill and its inherent flaws. The full text of the bill is available online for you to read, as I did before writing my column.”


    …to another poster who brought up the VERY SIMILAR points, Kevin Graves’ delineated:

    “My column didn’t discuss wedding photographers or DJs or talk about demanding that any business provide a service to any group, in particular gays.”

    So, Kevin Graves can PRETEND all he likes that he is NOT writing about these things, but neither the posters at the WNT NOR those at IP are FOOLED by Kevin Graves’ assertions.

    Moreover, when one adds to the mix yet ANOTHER of Kevin Graves’ responses to a WNT poster, Kevin Graves’ said of his own editorial:

    “It inspired a fairly reasonable discussion, so wouldn’t you consider that a good thing at least?”

    Uh, NO, Kevin, I would NOT, and neither do many other folks, either, because what you are doing is ignoring the well-known, relevant facts of the real world and then simply trying to argue with people based on some false pretense that your editorial exists in an other-worldly vacuum.

    Yet, somehow, you’re still going to want us to believe that your newspaper operates as a “newspaper that subscribes to a code of ethics”?

    See: “Ethics matter in community papers”

    It’s ethical to pretend your editorial is NOT related to the real-world and to actual current events?

    1. Many laws come from attitudes such as Kevin’s because it sounds real good in theory and that is how laws like the one in question get adopted. I myself am all for not descriminating against anyone BUT there is a limit. Just because I may accept those that are homosexual does not mean I am willing to use my energy and resources to produce content or services for their lifestyle.

      A statement like the following that Mr Graves made:
      “it can be confusing for a concerned business owner to ferret them out”

      Why would a business owner need to “ferret them out”? I mean what is that about? He is alluding that a business needs to classify people before offering services to them which is not the case. It is the content of what the business offers that is in question not the fact that the business owner is refusing service to homosexuals, if it is objectionable to the business owner that owner should have the right to refuse. There is a huge difference between someone refusing to sell something, a fixed object, based on sexual preference and having to create something that is morally objectionable to them. I am sorry but I would refuse also if asked to create something from my knowledge and sweat that I thought was personally objectionable.

      For an example if someone, a homosexual couple, asked me to create something for their business that would not be objectionable to me but if they asked me to create a something that displayed and encouraged a homosexual lifestyle I would refuse. It is not about the people it is about the content created. Period.

      I think Kevin Grave’s article and comments shows an unrealistic attitude towards those who do not want to create something that they find objectionable. Again this is about walking into a store and buying something. It is whether or not you can be forced to supply a service or create a product that you object to.

  5. ““it can be confusing for a concerned business owner to ferret them out””

    That completely made-up scenario was the fallacious “Argument By Scenario” that Kevin Graves created from which he then levied the rest of his bogus “opinion piece”: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#scenario ….

    ….while PRETENDING that his opinion piece reflected today’s real world in WA State (as opposed to the world of Nazi Germany during WWII).

    Seriously, this guy has “risen” to the post of “executive editor and publisher”?

    1. “What would you do if you walked into a restaurant, the owner took a look at you, your child or spouse and, for whatever reason, said, “I can’t in good conscience serve you.” Keven R.Graves, 14 May, 2013

      What a bunch of bull! Can you say clueless? The intent of this bill is to protect businesses from being forced to perform a job or task that they find objectionable. Several examples of this are listed in the article above.

    2. I don’t really know what he has risen to. I try and keep in mind that most of the newspapers employees are of a liberal philosophy and he may actually be very good at what he does keeping that in mind :)

      I do know that a lot of people that use similar logic. To make the comparisons that he did I have to believe he is very well steeped in the liberal philosophy, so much so that it clouds his judgement.

      I would imagine though if he owned a business and someone came in and asked him to make with his own hands something that was morally objectionable to him he would then realize the problems with the law as it currently stands.

      All to often people use feel good reasoning to justify supporting issues that in practicality and execution turn out to be something else entirely. This is the case with law we currently have and more than likely also the fault in Mr Graves reasoning or lack thereof.

      1. Remember when Marcia Van Dyke, was editor of both the Whidbey News-Times and South Whidbey Record, and refused to accept paid advertising requests for Commissioner Candidate Phil Colier but published every ad she could, ASAP, and sometimes forgot to accept payment for them from her friend, another Commissioner Candidate
        Remember one of Grave’s first editorials Island where he preached “County Commissioner Kelly Emerson and her husband, Ken, need to bring the years-long battle to a swift end”…and The Emersons maintain that there was no wetland on the property, and the commissioner and her husband sued Island County, and embarked on a lengthy battle.”
        That statement was totally incorrect
        Graves rational for that statement was from him reading WNT’s own press clippings and then using them as hiis source for publishing “his” opinion?
        A five minute GOOGLE search for “EMERSON ISLAND COUNTY WETLAND REPORT” would have given Graves overwhelming documents of evidence, not opinions, that county has no proof that there is now and never has been a wetland on the Emerson Proiperty, or any of the properties in that area according to County’s own records.
        The the long hand drawing by an unqualified County employee is useless, proving nothing.
        With Graves touted background we thought he’d be a great asset to our community. Graves has totally failed us to date.
        “A conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking”, author unknown
        Nothing has changed at Sound Publishing

  6. The proposed legislation seems very consistent with other rules and regulations in WA state. For example, here are the reasons listed for which people collecting unemployment benefits in WA State may refuse a job:

    “Q. Do I have to accept any job that is offered?

    A. You do not have to look for or accept work that is not suitable. Work is not suitable if:

    – The work is not in line with your training and experience. (After a period of time, any job you are qualified to do may become suitable work.)

    – You must join or resign from a labor union.

    – The hours or working conditions are not as favorable as most other jobs in your occupation in your area.

    – The work is farther than the usual commuting distance for people in your occupation in your area.

    – The wages offered are lower than the wages common for that occupation in your area.

    – The work is unreasonably dangerous.

    – You cannot physically do the work.

    – The work would offend your religious beliefs or moral conscience.”

    That’s from: “Frequently asked questions about unemployment benefits”: http://www.esd.wa.gov/uibenefits/faq/faq-ui.php

    That’s from the real world that Kevin Graves pretends not to live in when doing so does not fit his liberal agenda.

    1. Looks like Graves is emulating his hero, White House press secretary Jay Carney, and hopes the big O will notice him in a few days when the AP clan causes Carney to go back said to his old job, a Carnie huckster selling cure all bottles of magic cures everything kool aid in his tent next to the Midway’s big spinning wheel ride

  7. Unfortunately Homosexuals have a habit of flaunting their sexuality “in your face”, whether you are interested or not. I never even considered whether Mr. Graves was Gay until he posted a picture of himself and his partner. Something I didn’t need to see or have knowledge of. If the person in the picture is not his significant other I stand corrected and apologize in advance. However if on the other hand, I am correct in my assumption, then I believe I have made my case.

    1. Not sure what photo you are referring to: I am guessing maybe to his Facebook photo as of last Monday, which I surmise may be of him and his son (the younger looking person with teeth braces in the photo).

      However, I do find the phrase “pesky gays” in the title of Mr. Graves’ editorial to seem rather self-deprecating.

      1. Publius, I was speaking of the small Icon (photo) he is now using next to his post, as opposed to the Icon he previously used.

  8. A heads-up from the banned section of the peanut gallery — the other person in Keven Graves’s photo is most definitely his son Liam.

    1. Wait … I’m not banned anymore?!?!?!? My comment actually went through?!?!?!?

      I may need to sit down. I think I have the vapors. Apparently you CAN get a 473rd chance…

Comments are closed.