@ 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.
@A Guy With A Brain 3:03 p.m. July 23, 2014Hmmmmm.....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
Hmmmmm.....so does this mean that Obama will sign a law outlawing discrimination
against Christians and conservatives?Yes, that's a serious
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
@Frozen FractalsThere 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.
@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
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.
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.
@ MDurfeeMany 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
@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
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.
@Baccus0902@RanchThe 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.
@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.
@ JazzsmackYou 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
@Maudine and otheresThe 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.
@ 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.
@ JazzsmackSo 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
@Jazzsmack 11:08 p.m. July 18, 2014The 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
@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.
The way to interpret this is Catholic Charities in Massachusetts (no state money
without following certain rules regarding sexual orientation discrimination).
Hmm? Types of discrimination:* against pregnant women* equal
pay --men & women* race* transgender* gays* rich and
poor* age* income gapIsn't this more politics?
@jazzsmackThe 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
@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.
@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.
@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
Why are religious organizations contracting with the federal government?