1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Republicans Congress Push Religious Liberty Executive Order

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by AlexJames, Apr 25, 2017.

  1. AlexJames

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,139
    Likes Received:
    226
    Location:
    Texas
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    Other
    Sexual Orientation:
    Straight
    Out Status:
    A few people
    I have only read through half of it already and its scaring me. I'm scared. He'd better not. I might not have cared for Obama but he did what no other president would and make same sex marriage legal! And he tried to protect trans kids. I live in Texas so this would be a very bad thing. But my roots are here. My somewhat potentially accepting job is here. My family is here. I'm scared. What are the chances he will actually get something like this passed? And to what extent would it cover?

    Just to be clear, i wouldn't oppose something protecting religious liberty under specific conditions with specific requirements. Like, a business as a whole can only discriminate against and refuse service to LGBT people if they fill out certain paperwork and register as a religiously affiliated business or something. Like how churches get exceptions for taxes, i think. And an employee in a non-religiously-affiliated business who feels like they have a religious obligation to refuse service to certain customers - just like someone with a religious issue that would impact dress code, or their ability to carry out certain job tasks, etc - must inform the employer beforehand. Maybe stretch it and have some sort of liability form or agreement or whatever. Maybe non-religious businesses would be required to have at least one non-religious employee on shift and available to serve customers at all times.

    I was raised by a conservative religious mother so i can see their side of it even if i don't agree with it at all. I'm just scared that whatever they do - if they do anything - it will not be well thought out, not be well planned, and will adversely impact the lives of LGBT people rather than create a more...not equal, but i can't think of a more suitable word right now. But i think a law that makes both religious and LGBT opinions heard and valued would be good. Cause yes, we can't help it and they can, but they have a right to their opinion to and refusing to compromise will not help anything.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-religious-liberty-executive-order/100842590/
     
    #1 AlexJames, Apr 25, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  2. rainyday

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    na
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Having to deal with someone's whose existence and beliefs you disagree with is not the same as having basic good and services denied to you for reasons you can't control. The legal issues around needing to have a non religious person on staff are too many to to fully explore, like what if there aren't enough non religious people, would it count as giving certain people benefits in hiring, wouldn't some people be over worked in some areas, etc Etc. Imagine not being able to buy food at a restaurant, get a hotel room on vacation, rent an apartment, go to an amusement park or pool, buy a book, or go to school because you are Lgbt. The Jim Crow laws had similar restrictions for black people, and some people even used religion to back up their justifications. I don't care what they think the bible says I'm not cool with this. I'm Christian too I don't like how they get to decide who is legitimate and deserving of goods and services.
     
  3. AKTodd

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,190
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Having a right to an opinion is not the same as having the right to act on an opinion.

    There is also the old and well established principle that 'your right to swing your fist stops at my face'.

    These people are aiming to get the right to punch whomever they please with the sanction of the government.

    Todd
     
  4. Daydreamer1

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    5,680
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Gender:
    Male (trans*)
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Other
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Time to deny Trump supporters and evangelical Christians service, because my philosophy teaches me to only give my kindness to those who deserve it, not waste it on lowlife pricks like them. Let's see how much of a fit they throw when the shoe ends up on the other foot.

    Seeing as how Trump loves to jerk off his billionaire buddies and anything right-wing Murikkka, he's going to do sign anything they want him to and he's too stupid or doesn't care to know how much this is going to hurt people.
     
    #4 Daydreamer1, May 4, 2017
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  5. OnTheHighway

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Messages:
    3,932
    Likes Received:
    620
    Location:
    Florida
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    The EO is a smoke screen. There is no substance to it. Even the UCLA says it changes absolutely nothing, they are not even going to fight it from what I just read (if what I read was correct). It is simply a way for Pence to win some brownie points with his base, and Trump obliged.
     
  6. bluesunlight

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2017
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    How come LGBT people are the only ones being denied services due to "deeply held religious beliefs"? If complete religious moral rectitude is so important, why are only LGBT people singled out to be denied services? It's just an excuse to deny LGBT services because some people are uncomfortable with LGBT people. I guess LGBT people's money is always as green as everyone else's.
     
  7. andimon

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Eastern Europe
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    A few people
    I would understand that 'religious liberty' thing if it was actually anything but a huge pile of homophobic bullshit. If all companies who would have that 'deeply held religious beliefs' clause in their contracts refused to provide service for ANY category of sinners in the Christian religion, I would wholeheartedly get behind it.

    I think religious freedom is SUPER important, even if I despise to some extent the whole concept of religion. Unlike some, however, I know how to draw the line between personal opinions and what's right as a whole.

    However, CHERRY FUCKING PICKING their religion and denying service to ONE GROUP of what they call 'sinners' is FUCKING despicable. Once they start denying service to divorced people I would gladly support that executive order or whatever.
     
  8. Conservatives christians: Help! I'm a part of a religion that makes up 70% of the population and I'm being persecuted because some people disagree with me! Better take away the rights of them god damn GAYS!

    Gays: Help! I'm being denied a job and I'm being denied service on the basis of my sexual orientation!

    Conservative Christians: Don't look at ME!
     
  9. Kira

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Georgia
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I wonder if they'll ever stop serving people who wear mixed fabrics. Or would that cut out too much of their precious little profits?

    Just another cart on the locomotive of idiocy...
     
  10. AlexTheGrey

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    WA, USA
    Gender:
    Female (trans*)
    Currently, the community is the favorite punching bag getting headlines. But it isn't like this argument hasn't been used before to justify banning interracial marriage and support of Jim Crow. It's just repurposing the same crud against different people. And that's what makes it so depressing for me to see over and over again. But it gives me some idea what it has been like for African Americans fighting similar legal battles.

    So far, at least the courts are seeing the parallels in Washington, Arizona and Colorado. My favorite bit about the Washington court case (NY Times Link):

    Well, gee, when your whole argument is that you are being coerced to produce speech that endorses behavior not in line with your beliefs... and then you say it isn't an endorsement, I wonder why the argument falls apart. Too bad the florist couldn't see the parallels herself.