Quantcast
U.S. & World

Obama will sign order barring gay, transgender discrimination

Comments

Return To Article
  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    July 24, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    @ Furry1993 - Ogden, UT "@A Guy With A Brain 3:03 p.m. July 23, 2014 - "Hmmmmm.....so does this mean that Obama will sign a law outlawing discrimination against Christians and conservatives? Yes, that's a serious question." ---- And here's a serious answer. The so-called "Christians" and the far right so-called "conservatives" aren't being discriminated against. They're the ones doing the unjust and prejudicial discriminating. You think they should be given free license to practice unjust and prejudicial discrimination? I don't."

    Furry, no, I don't think Christians and conservatives should have "free license" to do "unjust and prejudicial discriminating".

    However, in truth, they are NOT doing those things you claim they are. If you refuse to see how the homosexual agenda is being crammed the throats of Christians and conservatives I simply cannot help you.

    Good luck.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 23, 2014 5:54 p.m.

    @A Guy With A Brain 3:03 p.m. July 23, 2014

    Hmmmmm.....so does this mean that Obama will sign a law outlawing discrimination against Christians and conservatives?

    Yes, that's a serious question.

    ----------------------

    And here's a serious answer. The so-called "Christians" and the far right so-called "conservatives" aren't being discriminated against. They're the ones doing the unjust and prejudicial discriminating. You think they should be given free license to practice unjust and prejudicial discrimination? I don't.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    July 23, 2014 3:03 p.m.

    Hmmmmm.....so does this mean that Obama will sign a law outlawing discrimination against Christians and conservatives?

    Yes, that's a serious question.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 4:13 p.m.

    @the truth
    "There are already labor laws, that were constitutionally made and do not violate any amendment, that deal with that."

    That's exactly my point. This is just another constitutional labor regulation regarding gov't contracts that does not violate any amendment.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    @Pianoman;

    Seriously?

    Do you even keep up with current events? The President only ADDED sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of those already protected. He didn't create any new laws, he only modified, very slightly, existing laws.

    Race, Religion, Gender, Color, etc. are already listed on the law that he modified. George Bush the First and the Second BOTH modified this law, as did Clinton.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 22, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    FT says:

    "Religon is not being persucuted in this country, equal rights are."

    --- I go even further and say that religion is not being persecuted in this country, they are those doing the persecuting.

  • Pianoman Salt Lake City, UT
    July 22, 2014 1:59 a.m.

    Now I would be applauding the Prez if he had the guts to sign Executive Orders protecting other discriminated groups besides the LGBT (and no I'm not talking about religious minorities), but since the LGBT seems to be the only group he's protecting all I can do is yawn.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 21, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    @Frozen Fractals

    There are already labor laws, that were constitutionally made and do not violate any amendment, that deal with that.

    Join us in the present times, and as you already know you can not create a new religion to just skirt existing laws.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    @Jazzsmack
    "The 14th amendment says the laws must applied equally under the law even to religious people and groups."

    What if a religious person/group thought child labor builds character? Would the gov't be obligated to give contracts to groups that hired 10 year olds just because a religion believed that, or would they have to follow laws regarding age of workers?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    July 21, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    Great move by the President. The GOP congress won't pass legislation that bars discrimination so we have an activist President who stands up for those being persecuted. That's leadership, which is why the right wing radicals trying to take over our country hate this President so.
    Bring on your law suit and give America another reason to see the hate, bigotry and fear mongering the religous right are waging in our country. Religon is not being persucuted in this country, equal rights are.

  • Eagle78 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 21, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Hit them where it hurts. The bank account. Start pulling contracts from religious groups who openly discriminate against gays and watch a bunch of them suddenly "receive revelation" that gays aren't so bad after all. Money is a language they are fluent in and since they don't seem to speak logic very well the government is on the right path.

    I bet if the government starts eyeing those tax exemptions they love so much we will start seeing them receive revelation in a hurry. Because if there is one thing greater than the power of God it's green paper with dead presidents on it.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 21, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    @ MDurfee

    Many religious institutions that offer these charitable services use them as an opportunity to sell their product. In many instances, the individuals being offered services are required to sit through a sermon or other type of religious advertising as a condition of receiving this "charity."

    Religious institutions already do not pay taxes, yet feel quite free to make use of taxpayer money to pitch their product and to call this "charity." On top of this, they also want to be free to make use of taxpayer money while being exempt from what is the very American value of non-discrimination. And they seek this exemption believing that this represents superior values.

    As often happens, religious belief turns things on their heads.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 21, 2014 5:07 a.m.

    @Jazzsmack;

    Are your churches businesses? If so, they don't need religious freedom. If not, they should not be getting government contracts.

    "The government answers to the people not the other way around.
    We the people are the ones in control and have all the rights it is not the other way around."

    --- We too are "the people". How conveniently you forget that.

    "You may not like how some people exercise their freedoms and their rights. But tough beans, we are not a dictatorship."

    --- You may not like other people having freedom and the right to not be discriminated against. Tough beans, we are NOT A THEOCRACY.

  • MDurfee OREM, UT
    July 20, 2014 7:12 p.m.

    The more the government tries to legislate morality, the less freedoms we all have. The same people who are lauding this rule, are also the ones who scream the loudest when the government tries to limit "free speech" by restricting porn or public displays of nudity.

    The government "contracts" they are talking about are religious organizations that operate homeless shelters, soup kitchens, or other social aid organizations. Now the government wants to tell them that if they want to provide this charitable service with any tax dollars (which benefit all of us by helping those who otherwise would have no other assistance), they have to satisfy yet another government regulation about who they hire.

    More regulations aren't necessarily the answer to all problems.

  • Jazzsmack Holladay, UT
    July 20, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    @Baccus0902
    @Ranch

    The government is not a business. They do no have their own money they have our money.

    The government answers to the people not the other way around.

    We the people are the ones in control and have all the rights it is not the other way around.

    That is how our system works.

    Limitations on the government who answer to the people,
    and Maximum freedom to the people.

    You may not like how some people exercise their freedoms and their rights.
    But tough beans, we are not a dictatorship.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    July 20, 2014 8:40 a.m.

    @Jazzsmack;

    Any contracting they do with the government is not religion, it is business. They're being told how they must operate their business; how they practice their religion is a separate issue. BTW; bigotry and discrimination aren't "moral values"; if their religions are "practicing" these things, then they're really not good religions.

    "The 14th amendment says the laws must applied equally under the law even to religious people and groups."

    It IS being applied equally. Neither the religious nor non-religious can discriminate and receive a contract.

  • Baccus0902 Leesburg, VA
    July 19, 2014 11:15 p.m.

    @ Jazzsmack
    You wrote:
    "The government can not deprive certain people or groups of government contracts, the people must treated equally by the government. Other wise the government is infringing and abridging the rights of some people."

    The government instead of creating an office to provide a service, contracts to private enterprises to provide the services. The government wants to provide the service to "ALL" citizens that qualify under government standards for that service.

    Therefore, the government is the client or the boss of the contractor. The boss or client tells the service provider what he/she wants. If a contractor cannot provide the service as required by its client. Then it shouldn't apply.

    You wouldn't you hire somebody to provide a service to you in a manner you don't want. Right?
    Why do you expect something less from the government?

  • Jazzsmack Holladay, UT
    July 19, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    @Maudine and otheres

    The laws can not tell them they can not practice their religion. That would be unconstitutional.

    The government can not deprive certain people or groups of government contracts, the people must treated equally by the government. Other wise the government is infringing and abridging the rights of some people.

    The 14th amendment says the laws must applied equally under the law even to religious people and groups.

    The first amendment says the that congress can not RESPECT "an establishment of religion", not created an establishment of religion.

    In other words they give preference to one religious group, church, or organization over another.

    It has NOTHING to do with establishing acts of worship.

    Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong.

    Under Jefferson the congress publish the Koran. The congress also publish Jefferson;s religious works and among funding other religious based actions,

    I am pretty sure Jefferson and the other founders understood how to exercise the first amendment better than you all.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    July 19, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    @ Jazzsmack: The government is not telling them how to practice their religion - it is telling them that if they want to operate a business, they must follow all the same laws as every other business owner, especially if they want to be paid with taxpayer dollars.

    If they want to discriminate against LGBT citizens in hiring practices, they are welcome to do so - they just also have to choose not to take the tax money of LGBT citizens, also.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 19, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    @ Jazzsmack

    So we all pay into the pot from which federal contracts are paid: religious people, atheists, heterosexuals, LGBTs...

    And the law protects religious people from being discriminated against for being religious...

    But the religious should not have to return the favor and instead should be allowed to discriminate against others who paid into the pot just like they did...

    I mean, excepting religious institutions, of course, who did NOT pay into the pot...

    And who are the ones asking for special treatment...

    Yes, it all sounds perfectly fair to me.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    @Jazzsmack 11:08 p.m. July 18, 2014

    The government is not telling anyone how to practice his/her religion. They just wont let those people impose their religion on the general public (which is an establishment of religion) in violation of the establishment clause found in Amendment 1 to the US Constitution.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    @Jazzsmack
    "Regardless of whether they get money from the government to provide services, the government can not tell how them to practice their religion."

    The gov't isn't telling them how to practice their religion, they're listing qualifiers for contractors to get federal funding and there's no religious right to gov't contracts.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    The way to interpret this is Catholic Charities in Massachusetts (no state money without following certain rules regarding sexual orientation discrimination).

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 19, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    Hmm? Types of discrimination:

    * against pregnant women
    * equal pay --men & women
    * race
    * transgender
    * gays
    * rich and poor
    * age
    * income gap

    Isn't this more politics?

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 19, 2014 9:19 a.m.

    @jazzsmack

    The first amendment does not entitle religions to government contracts and the courts have already determined that when churches are acting outside their eclisatical duties they must comply with all state and federal laws.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 19, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    @Jazzsmack: "Regardless of whether they get money from the government to provide services, the government can not tell how them to practice their religion."

    Nobody is trying to tell them how to practice their religion. Once they step across the line and take government money to provide services that changes the equation.

    During the civil rights era both Bob Jones University in Brigham Young University declined government funding so that they would not have to integrate. The government did not force either university to take any action. They simply said "if you're taking government money you have to follow government rules."

    This ruling is no different. If you want to go feed the hungry and give help only to people who need your religious standards, fine. But you don't get government money if you were going to discriminate. Your choice.

  • Jazzsmack Holladay, UT
    July 18, 2014 11:08 p.m.

    @Stormwalker
    =
    It is religious persecution.

    The first amendment is pretty clear.

    Regardless of whether they get money from the government to provide services, the government can not tell how them to practice their religion.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 18, 2014 9:48 p.m.

    @On the other hand: "Why are religious organizations contracting with the federal government?"

    Money.

    The government has money.

    The religious groups provide some social services and get government money to do it.

    Of course, we come to find out they are taking government money and want to discriminate against gay, lesbian and transgender people. Employees and clients.

    In fact, they are trying to claim the refusal to let them take tax dollars and then discriminate is religious persecution.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    July 18, 2014 9:20 p.m.

    Why are religious organizations contracting with the federal government?