Quantcast
Faith

Observers uncertain about the impact of Obama's employment orders on faith-based agencies

Comments

Return To Article
  • Idahotransplant West Jordan, UT
    July 28, 2014 5:37 p.m.

    Omni Scent. Its not about the number of executive orders but the content of the executive order. The majority of the executive orders by our current Presidents predecessors were constitutional. There is no basis for your argument on the number. It is strictly content. That is why we have three branches of government for checks and balances.

    As one of the founding fathers said: "When government fears the people it is called liberty, but when the people fear the government it is called tyranny".

    John F Kennedy (a Democrat) said these profound words " Ask not want the country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". In todays America its become the opposite.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    July 27, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    @ Stormwalker

    As usual, you're knocking them out of the park. Love to read your thoughtful, informed comments.

  • Willem Los Angeles, CA
    July 27, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    California our Golden State once again leads the way.Mormons are you listening? Change and equality is on the way for all of us, get ready for it LDS members,dont be left behind.

  • Swiss Price, Utah
    July 27, 2014 9:04 a.m.

    Why do I have to log in to comment to like previous comments sometimes and at other times just go to comments?
    This time I had to open a comment box to like the other comments.

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 26, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    @TheWalker: "If Congress can't pass the law, then King Obama will make one!"

    actually, he's the head of the executive branch of the government. That means he is essentially the CEO and is responsible for setting workplace policy for federal employees and federal contractors. Just like the CEO of a regular corporation. He did not create a new law, he modified in existing policy to include one more group of people.

    The real heartburn on this is not the president setting a workplace policy covering federal employees and contractors.

    People are objecting because they feel that they are licensed by God to abuse a group of citizens – gay men, lesbians, and transgender people.

    The president has said that you are free religiously to abuse whomever you wish. But if you're taking federal dollars or working for the federal government abusing citizens is not allowed, even if your religion says you can.

    Monotheistic religions gain power using us/them paradigm. God approves of insiders, god hates outsiders. That drives fund-raising and group cohesiveness. Works in religion, not in a pluralistic melting pot society where all are created equal.

  • Dr. Thom Long Beach, CA
    July 26, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    Then again, EO are not laws passed by Congress but edicts by one sitting president and easily disolved by another. A new president could enter the WH and on their first day eliminate any and all previously existsing Executive Orders simple by using " a pen and a phone."

  • TheWalker Saratoga Springs, UT
    July 26, 2014 1:23 a.m.

    If Congress can't pass the law, then King Obama will make one!

    Long live the King!

  • Stormwalker Cleveland , OH
    July 25, 2014 8:40 p.m.

    @john T: "He could - as has already happened in England - force churches to perform gay weddings and hire gay clergy."

    The church of England is an official state church supported by the taxpayers. It was ruled that a taxpayer supported church is not allowed to discriminate against some taxpayers.

    In America we don't have an official religion, an official church, or churches that are supported by tax dollars. So you're comparing apples and broccoli.

    In England there was no force to make the LDS church, or any other church, accept gay members into full fellowship. The only decision involved a church that was supported by the taxpayers.

    And as has been said on here over, and over, and over – if religion's don't want government money they can discriminate all they want. If they do want government money, however, they can't pick and choose the citizens that they hire with the citizens they serve. They lose that right when they start taking the citizens money.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 25, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    @scfan

    Here is a thought maybe religions could put others well being before there religious dogma and allow qualified LGBT people to be part of meeting those needs. Why should the people in crisis, such as "hurricane Catarina ", not get the best care because some organization refuses to hire a skilled person simply because they are LGBT?

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 25, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    To All

    That is why I'm glad the LDS Church does not want or expect help from the government. It does its charity work with the resources provided by its members. As for the government helping faith based organizations, I find it stupid for the government to deny any faith based organization the money to help just because of some PC issue. Here is an organization that wants to put boots on the gound. But the U.S. government would say, we don't want your help (with hurricain Katrina for instance) unless you allow LGBT. Stupid, stupid, stupid. All it does is punish the people who need the help most. All to make 3% of the country happy. Baloney. Let good people help when they want and put the politics and social policy aside. That's what I'd respect. And I'd really respect any LGBT who agreed that, at times, others needs come before theirs.

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 24, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    @john t

    Actually that is a very illogical conclusion for two reasons one we are talking about religious organizations performing secular services for the public and the fact that the courts have been very clear that religions are immune to civil rights laws when it comes to their eclisastical work.

  • John T Scranton, PA
    July 24, 2014 9:31 p.m.

    The Federal Government - and Obama in particular - are treading on dangerous ground here. When the government begins to dictate to churches and faith-based groups how they operate and whom they hire, then we have all but lost freedom of religion. If one follows these "executive actions" to their logical conclusion, Obama could eventually order a Christian church or organization, such as a Bible College, to hire Muslims or Atheists to teach. He could - as has already happened in England - force churches to perform gay weddings and hire gay clergy. Government needs to keep their hands off churches - and conversely, churches and faith-based organizations need to shun government contracts and grants, so as not to be beholden to government.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 24, 2014 6:20 p.m.

    SCfan said:"Seperation of Church and state. Isn't that always what the secular left wants? So, if consistent, they would not want government interfering with faith based organizations any more than they would want faith based organizations interfering in government. Right? How come I think they don't see it that way?

    If the faith based organizations would pay for the charity services themselves, instead of holding their hand out for money from the federal government, (not a religion) to use for their charity and take credit for. Then these same religious groups complain about conditions for the use of that money, and want to be able to discriminate against Americans based on their religion while fulfilling a civil contract.

    It's really straight forward. Pay for your charity, discriminate all you want. If we the people are paying, than you follow our rules.

    @Patriot. When did the government force the LDS church to allow African Americans into your Temple?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 24, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    @sc fan

    Religious organizations that take funding from the goverment choose to "entangle" themselves with the goverment. You cannot take the publics money dedicated to offering assistance to the public then refuse to serve them. If religious organizations don't want entanglement don't take goverment money it's not complicated.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    July 24, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    @SCfan

    "they would not want government interfering with faith based organizations"

    It's not about government interfering with faith based organizations. It's about faith based organizations seeking federal dollars from executive agencies to provide services ON BEHALF OF the Federal Government. Allowing faith-based organizations to make employment decisions based on their religious beliefs for those employees who deliver the services they have contracted with the US Government to provide is a violation of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment. This executive order does not force any faith based organization to hire LGBT for jobs within the organization NOT RELATED to the service they have contracted to provide. For example, a Catholic organization that has contracted with the US government to provide medical services for the VA cannot discriminate in hiring LGBT to preform that service but they CAN discriminate in hiring in one of their Church run hospitals that is not affiliated with the contract to the VA.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 24, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    Seperation of Church and state. Isn't that always what the secular left wants? So, if consistent, they would not want government interfering with faith based organizations any more than they would want faith based organizations interfering in government. Right? How come I think they don't see it that way?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 23, 2014 11:46 p.m.

    @joe capitalist

    So when you say "the "in your face" exhibition of the gay lifestyle in your workplace," are you talking about doing their paperwork, taking lunch, having a picture if their significant other on their desk, talking with their coworkers about their weekend or any of hundrads of things we all, gay and hetro, do at work? What exactly does "gay lifestyle" mean to you?

  • intervention slc, UT
    July 23, 2014 11:07 p.m.

    @joe
    When you make comment like "If you don't want to deal with the 'in your face' exhibition of the gay lifestyle in your workplace." Your own words define your motivations no other commentary is necessary.
    No matter how much you try to stand this on its head you are not the victim you are taking part in holding others down.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    July 23, 2014 6:35 p.m.

    Apparently I was misinformed, after doing a bit more research. Apologies; however, the fact remains that the president continues to flaunt the laws of the land, ignoring the constitution when he sees fit, and he is out of control.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 23, 2014 4:23 p.m.

    re:FatherOfFour

    name some of the things you oppose from Barack policy wise.

    Obamacare?
    The Economy and energy production?
    Foreign policy?

    I guess I am suspecious about your "real" ideology.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 23, 2014 4:09 p.m.

    getting a federal student loan or contract with the federal govt is going to be impossible in the near future the way Barack is "reshaping America" unless you are god-less, faith-less, and most certainly NOT a member of any organization that opposes BIG BROTHER. Every time I watch the "Hunger Games" I am reminded of the chilling message of the movie because I see the same spying, intimidating, threats, and other "Communist Party" like tactics from the Obama White House and his hirlings as they play out every week.

    The America people have to "take back" their country and freedoms and it all starts in a few months with the mid-term elections. This country has NEVER been more divided and polarized since the Civil War and that is on purpose - following the Obama playbook (Rules For Radicals).

  • David Centerville, UT
    July 23, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    If I am correct in my political governance understandings, these presidential orders all go away if the next president says so. Because Congress did not write these things into law, they are only a presidential order until the next president reverses it.

    Obama, and America, would be better off if the president would simply work the system the way it was meant to be worked...through Congress. if Congress disagrees, then it is time to start compromising, wheeling and dealing. But because Obama insists on his way only, Congress cannot negotiate with him (remember his statement that Republicans can come along for the ride but they'll have to sit at the back of the bus?).

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2014 3:41 p.m.

    @patriot
    "I 100% guarantee that in less than 10 years LDS Temples will be "forced" to be open to everyone "

    There is no logical reason to believe that.

    @Lagomorph
    "Why do these organizations raise such a fuss about just one kind of (perceived) sin and not others?"

    It's so easy to focus on the subset of sins that oneself is not particularly susceptible to committing.

    @RedShirt
    There's been over 10,000 executive orders... this isn't something new. If the entire concept of them were an issue it'd have gone through the courts by now.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 23, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    re:JoeBlow

    Actully Joe I give about 40% of the American people loads of credit for still wanting and valueing freedom ...oh and understanding actually what it is and why it is important. It is the other 50% + that scares me. When I see a president erasing our freedoms at the rate it is currently happening - especially with Obamacare - and I see the low info crowd that worhips the man even though they have no idea what his policies are nor do they care so long as the free stuff keeps coming - that is when I can easily see religious freedoms as I mentioned being erased by your lefties in a decade from now. Look around Joe - law suits are everywhere from the Little Sisters Of the Poor to Hobby Lobby deserate to try to hang on to those faith based freedoms that are the core and center of their lives.

    As far as gun control goes - those of us who "actually" own guns and understand the second amendment also understand the stated goal of the left to make America a "gun free" nation. Better spend more time checking out your own party leaders and what they are saying Joe.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 23, 2014 2:41 p.m.

    To "Craig Clark" where does it say that in the Constitution. Where does it state that the President can.

    Maybe you need to read the Constitution since what you claim IS NOT IN THERE.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 23, 2014 1:58 p.m.

    RedShirt,

    "Why hasn't anybody asked the big question, which is:

    Since when can a US President enact a law simply by signing an executive order?

    The faith based organizations should challenge what Obama has done in court."
    ______________________________

    Aren’t you one of the conservatives in here who lectures the left on how we need to read the Constitution?

    Executive orders (which have been issued by every President starting with Washington) have the force of law under power granted the President under the Constitution or pursuant to enforcement of an Act of Congress. It is the DUTY of the President to enforce the law. The President can in fact be impeached for NOT using the powers of office to enforce the law.

    Bill Clinton issued the executive order banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both GW Bush and Barack Obama have continued the policy. This particular case has to specifically with discrimination against gay employment as a criterion in awarding Federal contracts.

    Faith leaders can pursue litigation if they so choose.

  • Lagomorph Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    I'm struggling to reconcile the faith-based organizations' objections to hiring LGBT people with their widely touted "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy, which, even though flawed, makes a valid distinction between the actor and the act. Personnel decisions are made for people, not actions. If they truly loved the sinners, they would hire them, not discriminate against them.

    By the way, don't Christians see all humans as inherently sinful? Why do these organizations raise such a fuss about just one kind of (perceived) sin and not others? Why don't they consider whether job applicants are gluttons, sloths, greedy, proud, or envious in their hiring decisions as well? To be concerned only about certain sins when there are so many to choose from is the worst form of discrimination and certainly inconsistent.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 23, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    "I 100% guarantee that in less than 10 years LDS Temples will be "forced" to be open to everyone"

    I would certainly take that bet and give you odds.

    You, and many others are quick to take something reasonable (no discrimination in government contracts) and take it to an unrealistic extreme.(LDS temples without restrictions)

    Just like gun control. You believe that those who support universal background checks (reasonable) want to see a complete gun ban (unreasonable).

    You do not give the American people much credit.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 23, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    Understands Math: "When you want to argue against something, you do so using strawman language."

    I don't think that word (strawman) means what you think it means. A strawman is something that does not exist.

    I have read hundreds of times on this forum messages from people on the left who call anyone who opposes SSM homophobic. They accuse anyone who is religious who doesn't want to pay for abortion drugs as misogynists and anyone who thinks homosexual acts are sinful, bigots.

    Where is the strawman in my argument?

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    July 23, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    Red shirt: he's not enacting a law. As head of the executive branch, he is tasked with overseeing how the executive branch and the agencies under it operate. As such, he made a decision not to reward those that discriminate by giving them federal money or contacts. Perfectly legal, no constitutional overreach as some would claim, no new laws being made.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    July 23, 2014 12:26 p.m.

    I 100% guarantee that in less than 10 years LDS Temples will be "forced" to be open to everyone - no more commandments to be followed or recommends needed. Barack and the left will
    "force" Churches to abandon their beliefs ...it is happening as we speak. America is no longer a free country and we twice elected the guy to make it that way!!! Welcome comrade!!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 23, 2014 12:24 p.m.

    Why hasn't anybody asked the big question, which is:

    Since when can a US President enact a law simply by signing an executive order?

    The faith based organizations should challenge what Obama has done in court.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    July 23, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    @JoeCapitalist2 wrote: "If you don't want to uproot the definition of marriage so that it becomes meaningless...then you are just homophobic. If you don't want to pay for someone's abortion because you think that killing a baby is wrong...then you just hate women and you are imposing your religious beliefs on others. If you don't want to deal with the "in your face" exhibition of the gay lifestyle in your workplace...then you are a bigot.

    See the pattern."

    I do see the pattern. When you, JoeCapitalist2, want to argue against something, you do so using strawman language.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 23, 2014 11:42 a.m.

    The left wants to frame everything in terms of hate, bigotry, and other phobias to prove that anyone who objects to some kind of behaviour (i.e. is...gasp..."judgemental") is completely irrational.

    If you don't want to uproot the definition of marriage so that it becomes meaningless...then you are just homophobic. If you don't want to pay for someone's abortion because you think that killing a baby is wrong...then you just hate women and you are imposing your religious beliefs on others. If you don't want to deal with the "in your face" exhibition of the gay lifestyle in your workplace...then you are a bigot.

    See the pattern.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 23, 2014 10:28 a.m.

    Cocosweet,

    "....I wasn't talking about charities, rather Fed contractors who can hide behind religion to justify pretty much any behavior they want."
    ______________________________

    That’s precisely the mindset I feared that the ill-considered Hobby Lobby ruling might unleash. The ink is barely dry on the court ruling and here we already have faith leaders asking for a specific exemption for religious organizations. I hope the President’s executive orders send the message that being awarded a government contract is not an entitlement and certainly is not going to allot preferential consideration based on religious beliefs.

  • Understands Math Lacey, WA
    July 23, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    @Mikhail wrote: "When is enough, enough? How many laws are needed to protect every perceived micro-offense?"

    "Micro-offense"? If you were denied employment simply because your employer didn't like your sexual orientation, I don't think you'd call it a "micro-offense."

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    July 23, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    ""This kind of thing is chilling for religious organizations," said Stanley Carlson-Theis, founder and president of the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, "

    --- Do you even understand how "chilling" it is for LGBT people to know that so-called "religious" people want to discriminate against them? To know that you can lose your job because your "religious" boss doesn't like your being LGBT? Talk about "chilling".

    No organization should be exempt from non-discrimination laws. None.

    "The big question is: How far does religious hiring go?"

    --- How about just accepting the best qualified candidate? Is that so difficult?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 23, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    Mikhail,

    "....When is enough, enough? How many laws are needed to protect every perceived micro-offense?"
    ______________________________

    These two executive orders affirm existing laws prohibiting discrimination which is anything but a “micro-offense.” In contrast to Obama, Lincoln had far less legal grounds for his most notable executive order that we know of today as the Emancipation Proclamation. If the Federal Government doesn’t lead by example, I wouldn't expect the rest of the country to just automatically put its own house in order.

  • cocosweet Sandy, UT
    July 23, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    A small percent of Evangelical Christians oppose interracial marriages (Comes from Christianity Today article). Example : Only recently did Bob Jones University remove it's rule against interracial dating.

    The point I was trying to make is anyone can come up with a religion, make up their own belief system, and hide behind it.

    As for religious charities? They can do as they will, but if they want Federal money they are going to have to follow the rules.
    Finally, I wasn't talking about charities, rather Fed contractors who can hide behind religion to justify pretty much any behavior they want.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 23, 2014 9:18 a.m.

    @Cocosweet:
    "Where does this put us when you have religions that can tout they don't believe in "mixing" races and therefore won't hire (or will fire) a mixed race person?"

    Do you know of any religions that object to mixing of races? So maybe your point is moot.

    In my hometown there was this one family of John Birchers. (They thought there was a commie conspiracy to take over the government). Our country proposed being incorporated. So the wife comes over and talks to my mom. She was up in arms. She said, "This is a step towards world government. People will be getting shot in the streets."

    Well the county incorporated and no one is getting shot in the streets yet. So let's allow faith based charities to continue as they always have and see if all of a sudden religions objecting to mixed races show up. If not, Cocosweet, will you apologize for stumbling over your stereotypes?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 23, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    JoeBlow: "IF Obama had issued the most executive orders than previous GOP presidents, you can bet that it would be VERY relevant."

    Yes, I'm sure that some conservatives would be playing that political game...just like liberals would be downplaying the numbers and saying they don't matter.

    It is kind of like what the media and liberals are now doing with all Obama's negative numbers. If Bush (or any GOP president) had the current unemployment rate, the current GDP growth rate, or the current negative poll numbers as Obama now does; it would be on the front page of all the newspapers and leading every evening newscast. Instead stories that speak truth to the current economic malaise are buried on page 12 if they exist at all.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 23, 2014 8:59 a.m.

    Instead of fighting for the right to take federal money and discriminate at the same time, these outfits can wean themselves of one or the other. Or both. Or are the 'nonprofits' otherwise motivated?

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    July 23, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    These executive orders are timely when a few private sector members are doubling down in a show of in your face defiance to assert a right to discriminate on the basis of faith. That manifestation of anti-government loathing is about much more than sexual orientation. It's a threat to the rule of law that has to be curbed.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    July 23, 2014 8:51 a.m.

    "The number of executive orders any president signs is irrelevent."

    IF Obama had issued the most executive orders than previous GOP presidents, you can bet that it would be VERY relevant.

  • NorthOfHere Rexburg, ID
    July 23, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    Folks, we are acting like we are surprised he did this. Hang on to your hats, the next couple of years will be filled with ugly, blatant agenda pushing. Somehow people will still approve of what he did as a president. I guess that is why CNBC exists though.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 23, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    The number of executive orders any president signs is irrelevent. It is the content of those orders that matter.

    A president may sign a thousand executive orders that have little or no impact. Another president may only sign a few, but they radically change how government works.

    It is just silly to suggest that one president is better or worse than another based solely on the number of orders he signed. It is like saying one president hiked taxes 10 times for a total of 2% while another only hiked them twice for a total of 5%. Which is worse the guy who raised taxes 10 times or the guy that only raised them twice?

    These are the political games that people play to sway the uniformed.

  • cocosweet Sandy, UT
    July 23, 2014 8:18 a.m.

    It absolutely horrifies me that so called "religious" organizations would be allowed to discriminate. Where does this put us when you have religions that can tout they don't believe in "mixing" races and therefore won't hire (or will fire) a mixed race person? I've always felt religion is about love and tolerance.. apparently this is not the case. Judgmental, cruel behavior is what is being exhibited. Makes me reconsider my church (though not my beliefs).

    P.S. Thanks everyone for correcting cool cat. So easy to listen to Kay Granger (Republican from Texas) who originated the chain email letter than checking Snopes to see if the rumor is true. I do my best to make it a habit to check my facts.

  • nycut New York, NY
    July 23, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    @Cool Cat Cosmo: "This is no surprise, since he's the same president who has issued more than three times the number of executive orders of all the previous presidents combined."

    I think you've been misinformed.

    15,227 executive orders have been signed since George Washington.
    183 by Obama.

    Here are the last four presidents, for a realistic point of reference.

    166 - George H. W. Bush
    364 - William J. Clinton
    291 - George W. Bush
    183 - Barack Obama

  • Clint M Salt Lake City, UT
    July 23, 2014 7:53 a.m.

    "This is no surprise, since he's the same president who has issued more than three times the number of executive orders of all the previous presidents combined."

    This is inaccurate.

    Number of Executive Orders Issued

    Barack Obama : 183
    George W. Bush: 291
    Bill Clinton: 364
    George Bush Sr.: 166
    Ronald Regan: 381

    Source: Newshour/PBS

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    July 23, 2014 7:52 a.m.

    Hey cool cat, Ronald Regan had 381 executive orders, Bill Clinton had 364, George W Bush had 291, and Barack Obama? Currently about 183. He's not 3 times as many as all his predecessors, not even as many as any one of the last couple predecessors.

  • md Cache, UT
    July 23, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    Worst President Ever.

  • Cool Cat Cosmo Payson, UT
    July 23, 2014 7:21 a.m.

    This is no surprise, since he's the same president who has issued more than three times the number of executive orders of all the previous presidents combined. What is m most worrisome to me is how easily the other branches of government have let the current president trample the constitution and seperation of powers innumberable times in his quest for hegemony, thereby tying a very dangerous precedent.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 23, 2014 6:58 a.m.

    The issue regarding qualification for employment is whether the person can properly do the job, NOT what that person's sexual orientation may be. The so-called "faith" organizations and employers merely want a license to exercize prejudicial discrimination and bigotry. They should not get it.

  • Filthy Kuffar Spanish Fork, UT
    July 23, 2014 6:51 a.m.

    Great, now will he have time to sign an executive order to secure the border?

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    July 23, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    Is this designed to destroy charitable religious groups so that government becomes the only charity and the only religion? This order can only be resolved in litigation. The cost of litigation will damage the efforts of religious charities and schools. Eager, opportunistic lawyers will be happy to handle the prosecution on behalf of those that believe they are offended, but charitable institutions are not in the business of paying attorneys as part of the cost of doing business.
    When is enough, enough? How many laws are needed to protect every perceived micro-offense?

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 23, 2014 6:31 a.m.

    If a religious organization wants to provide services to the poor, then why don't they avoid federal entanglements and do it on their own? No one forces anyone to take a federal contract.

    Or perhaps, this is about money. The "free" money from the government means everything.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    July 23, 2014 6:23 a.m.

    I applaud Obama for this action. While I may not support him on some issues and may criticize him heavily on some of his other policies, in this I am in complete agreement with him. Good job. He earned back a small bit of my respect that he had lost.