Published: Thursday, July 31 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
A-- the President only had to issue the order after giving up on Congress to
pass a fair piece of legislation. B-- this quote from a GW Bush
order, by the DN is heinous " faith-based contractors may restrict hiring to
members of their own faith."---Taxpayer money should never go to
groups that only hire their own faith.C-- what is the DN doing by
printing a ridiculous fear-based, gay-baiting quote: “The problem with
their executive order is that it paves the way for the next one, which could
withhold the tax-exempt status or broadcast status or broadcast licenses for the
religious organizations holding biblical believes with which the administration
disagrees.”Do you really have such animus toward President
Obama that you believe he would withhold broadcast licences for religious
groups, no matter how nutty and far out they are?
"Pastor Robert Jeffress of Dallas’ First Baptist Church told Fox News
his fears of where lies the next battlefield: “The problem with their
executive order is that it paves the way for the next one, which could withhold
the tax-exempt status or broadcast status or broadcast licenses for the
religious organizations holding biblical believes with which the administration
disagrees.”Ah, the slippery slope again. No matter that this
nonsense has been going around the internet for at least twelve years so far,
with dire warnings about the end of the republic. It's still being used to
rally the masses whose attention span is as long as the sound bite.And did he really say "believes", not "beliefs"?The Deseret News operates in the bubble that is Utah. You have forgotten that
many of the evangelical Christians in this country loathe Mormons and will not
hire them if they have a legal right to not do so.
Malarkey. Baloney. Nonsense.Discrimination is wrong, no matter
what cloth your wrap it in. If the fundamentalists are so set on
ridding themselves of the burden of dealing with "sinners" on the
payroll of a government contract, then why don't they start with those who
violate one of the Ten Commandments. Do you really think that is going to
happen? No (you know the bad word) way. Fundamentalists want only
one thing. The power to demand that the majority of us accept their
"values" and put them into law. That works out real well in Iran
doesn't it (sarcasm intended).
Who would your god discriminate against?
Why should "faith-based" entities get a loophole to be able to
discriminate against LGBT citizens protected by the order, but you're not
advocating that anybody else get a loophole to be able to discriminate on the
basis of religion which is also protected in the order?Why? Because
This is troubling. Running a business is not a religious activity. Employers
should not impose their religious beliefs on people they hire. Your position is
about the imposition of religious beliefs of the people in power over the people
with little or no power. This isn't religious freedom at all. I wonder if
you would change your tune if you were in the minority.
Religous discrimination is discrimination. A strong, American leader would
always take a stand against discrimination no matter how one tries to disguise
Religion is blatantly standing before us and saying it wants to discriminate.
The president, and the government, are right to oppose this.
I wish the article had provided a real example. I'm confused about what
types of jobs this actually affects. A quote from the article: “With a
recent executive order, President Obama prohibited discrimination based on
sexual orientation in the hiring of those working under federal contract without
clearly including protections for the free exercise of religion.”What does religion have to do with government contracts? What is a
faith-based government contractor do? Why does our government need to hire
religious contractors? What type of job exists that is a federal contract and
which also requires a specific religion—and which religion?I’m not being snarky…I really can not get my brain around this
problem. Perhaps someone can clarify.
@FT 8:09 a.m. July 31, 2014Religous discrimination is
discrimination. A strong, American leader would always take a stand against
discrimination no matter how one tries to disguise it.----------------------Since it is the religions that are trying to
claim the right to discriminate, even when they take federal funds (part of
which being contributed by the people against whom they wish to discriminate) it
is entirely proper that there is no "religious exception" in the ban on
distrimination included in this executive order.
The President has no authority to legislate. Article 1, Section 1: "All
legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."It's time that the Court sent Obama the message that he needs to
hear. He is not a king. He cannot dictate policy or legislate anything. He
job is to enforce laws passed by Congress.
It's real simple DNews. If faith-based entities desire to dine at
Caesar's table and on Caesar's dime they must do do so under
Caesar's rules. Jesus was pretty clear about that.
FTYou are right. Religious discrimination is still
discrimination.So why do conservative religionists attempt to codify
into law their prejudices? Many mainstream religions accept women as leaders,
gay marriage and a host of other hot button issues. Yet the fundamentalist
crowd insist that these "liberal" religions have to follow their rules
and enshrine discrimination into the law.You can not have your cake
and eat it too
@Mike Richards,Issuing orders to the federal agencies over which he
is the CEO is not legislating, it is directing and he has constitutional
authority to do so (Article 2, Section 1, clause 1). I must note,
however, how strangely silent the religious right was when George W. Bush was
issuing his 291 executive orders and his 700+ signing statements.
The Deseret News is actually quoting Robert Jeffress? Seriously? I'm
thinking that whoever wrote this piece didn't run that particular name by
the DN Religion Editor.The DN quoting Robert Jeffress is like Ebony
magazine quoting David Duke. Laughing in disbelief here.
@ Mike: Executive orders are issued by the President to give instruction to
departments which are part of the executive branch, and therefore under his
purview as the head of the executive branch per the Constitution, or when
Congress has delegated legislative power to the executive branch. George Washington issued 8 executive orders, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued
3,522, Ronald Reagan issued 381, George W. Bush issued 291, and Barack Obama has
issued 183 as of 7/20/2014. The Constitutionality of specific
executive orders can be (and have been) challenged in Court. It is possible
this one will also be challenged - not on the grounds that Ovama did not have
authority to issue it, but on the grounds that it violates RFRA.
The feds should get out of the construction business. Then we'd only need
to be concerned with corruption in state capitols.
I guess I'm not getting all this restrictions on Freedom of Religion stuff.
I worship when I want and where I want. I don't feel any pressure by the
government to be of any religion, go to church, not go to church etc. I pray in
my own home anytime I want. I associate with other members of my own faith in
public whenever I want. Not getting the paranoia...
Have we become a nation of illiterates who can no longer read and understand
English?Obama ADDED legislation. He decided that he would determine
who could receive business from the Federal Government. That authority resides
in Congress, not in the executive branch. The President cannot legislate. He
can only enforce laws passed by Congress. Any 1st year lawyer could explain that
to you. Any judge could clearly see that Obama wrote legislation. He does not
have that authority.If Congress restricted government contracts to
only those approved by Obama, Congress would have clearly stated that fact.
Congress did not legislate any law requiring anything about "sexual
discrimination". Obama legislated. Period.
“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult,” Jeffress told
reporters here. “Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to
embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”Seriously? The DN
thinks anything this man has to say is worth quoting and repeating in their
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments