No we do not hate you.

[time4fun]

You could start with proving it wrong? There is no Federal law that disallows discrimination based on sexuality. Many states have made it illegal, but the Federal gov't hasn't except for Federal employment.

Title VII prohibits discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, and national original. The EEOC has said that sex part covers same-sex people but that isn't binding to anything but Federal employees. That is a case that COULD be made but hasn't been successful as of yet.

Oh, you are assuming I am against same-sex marriage I assume. Let me get that out of the way. I don't give two shits who you are having sex with or married to.

*groan* There are actually several cases, EOs, and laws that prohibit various forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (you are aware that SCOTUS just ruled that it was unconstitutional to bar LGBTQ people from marrying, and that DOMA was ruled unconstitutional). You are correct that SO is not a strict scrutiny class, and that there are still gaping holes in protection, but that doesn't mean protections don't exist. Also, a Federal bill would supersede all of the thousands of state and local laws across the country that protect people on the basis of SO.


You are treating state-sponsored discrimination against a minority group like it's no big deal. I've seen you do this several times at this point, and your lack of respect for other citizens and for civil rights is unnerving. It doesn't matter whether or not you are personally one to engage in discrimination, treating discrimination and non-discrimination with equal ambivalence in the face of impending civil rights violations is functionally equivalent to actively supporting it.

[Whirlin]

Sadly, that doesn't change the fact that in the private sector discrimination based of sexual orientation is allowed.
Correct, but it gives corporations an ability to declare religious exemptions to enable the persistence of their discriminatory behavior.

[time4fun]

Correct, but it gives corporations an ability to declare religious exemptions to enable the persistence of their discriminatory behavior.

it also overrules all of the state and local laws that DO prohibit private sector discrimination, AND it prevents any new civil rights gains. Plus, government contractors are subject to non-discrimination rules. Those are private citizens who would be allowed to now discriminate under the new law.

This is an evil bill that has one purpose: to oppress a minority group that people in power feel should be oppressed. This is text book evil.

[drauz]

*groan* There are actually several cases, EOs, and laws that prohibit various forms of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (you are aware that SCOTUS just ruled that it was unconstitutional to bar LGBTQ people from marrying, and that DOMA was ruled unconstitutional). You are correct that SO is not a strict scrutiny class, and that there are still gaping holes in protection, but that doesn't mean protections don't exist. Also, a Federal bill would supersede all of the thousands of state and local laws across the country that protect people on the basis of SO.


You are treating state-sponsored discrimination against a minority group like it's no big deal. I've seen you do this several times at this point, and your lack of respect for other citizens and for civil rights is unnerving. It doesn't matter whether or not you are personally one to engage in discrimination, treating discrimination and non-discrimination with equal ambivalence in the face of impending civil rights violations is functionally equivalent to actively supporting it.

Here's the thing, I haven't specifically said one way or another whether I support it or not. To be truthful I was ignorant of the Lemon Test, I have since read some about it and would have to agree that the bill linked before wouldn't pass those requirements. I am not the be all end all of legal knowledge, obviously. I am willing to take in new information and change my views based on it.

If you show me the laws you talk about that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation I could possibly change what I said that "discrimination is allowed in the private sector".

As I said before, but I had edited it before you read it though, I enjoy playing devil advocate to view issues from both sides and come to my own opinion. In this particular case I gained more knowledge from it and will continue to do it.

[SoulSeer]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in educational facilities and public workplaces. This act has been expanded to include other classes in recent years and the LGBT community has made a lot of progress in becoming a protected class and establish in my mind an unbreakable precedent. I have gay family members and a diverse group of friends that I care deeply about.

However, I find myself constantly questioning this point. Over the course of a couple decades, it seems to me that the freedom of religion has changed to the freedom to worship. Let me state that my personal beliefs are inclusive of everyone and are based on compassion and caring. I am not a religious zealot, but those that are deeply religious, rooted firmly in their religious beliefs, and strictly practice their religion in their daily life are being forced to go against their religion or face possible legal repercussions. I don't belief the first amendment was written or should be interpreted this way. The press is allowed to make points for or against protected classes, the freedom of speech allows people to vocally express these same points, and the freedom to peacefully assemble does as well. So why has the freedom of religion been singled out?

Again, this is my devil's advocate. I am unsure of how I truly believe about this topic. I have no idea of what a compromise could be, I don't really think there is one. There is no way to regulate any type of compromise either. This issue is complex, or at least it is to me. I continue to dwell on this with deep, honest, and open thoughts.

Oh, I didn't vote for Trump... I went with Gary Johnson.

[ClydeR]

Do a Google search for viewpoint neutrality.

This bill would give people who hold a certain belief about marriage greater rights than people who hold another belief about marriage. For example, any covered person could sue without exhausting administrative remedies and would be entitled to be reimbursed for their attorney fees. But someone discriminated against for holding the opposite view would not have those rights under this bill. I predict that Congress will recognize the constitutional flaw and amend it before finalizing it.




The only way to actually separate church and state is to have laws that don't make religion the reason for going to or staying out of jail, and the only way to do that is not have religion be the reason in any law. Religion is expressly so in this law, so it is expressly unconstitutional.

The Constitution does not require separation of church and state. That's just something Thomas Jefferson made up.




The Supreme Court made it even easier by devising a three pronged test, the first prong of which is "The statute must have a secular legislative purpose." This bill is explicitly not secular. It is explicitly the opposite of that.

Enforcing the First Amendment is a secular purpose.

[ClydeR]

Over the course of a couple decades, it seems to me that the freedom of religion has changed to the freedom to worship. Let me state that my personal beliefs are inclusive of everyone and are based on compassion and caring. I am not a religious zealot, but those that are deeply religious, rooted firmly in their religious beliefs, and strictly practice their religion in their daily life are being forced to go against their religion or face possible legal repercussions. I don't belief the first amendment was written or should be interpreted this way. The press is allowed to make points for or against protected classes, the freedom of speech allows people to vocally express these same points, and the freedom to peacefully assemble does as well. So why has the freedom of religion been singled out?


At lease one Supreme Court judge agrees with you..


Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday laid out a possible agenda for the U.S. Supreme Court if it regains its conservative majority as expected after Donald Trump takes office, citing gun rights and religious freedom as among key issues it will tackle in the coming years.

More... (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN13C2E7)


Freedom of religion is in "even greater danger," Alito said.

He cited a case the high court refused to hear in June as an example.

The justices turned away an appeal by a family-owned pharmacy that cited Christian beliefs in objecting to providing emergency contraceptives to women under a Washington state rule. Critics of that pharmacy objected to the family imposing its religious beliefs on customers.

[Wrathbringer]

lol @ Latrinsorm arguing with his other persona, clyder.

[Tgo01]

It writes Citizens United into law. Which is somewhat different from the supreme court ruling. Corporations are not people.

Corporations have been treated as people in this country for over a hundred years now. The left just whipped people into a frenzy over Citizens United because they made it seem it was the first time in our country's history that a corporation was treated as a person.

[Methais]

FOAM BLOB IS ATTACKING CALIFORNIA OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG!!!!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/FOX10Phoenix/videos/1176051792443366/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

[Tgo01]

it also overrules all of the state and local laws that DO prohibit private sector discrimination, AND it prevents any new civil rights gains.

First of all I think you and others are blowing this bill out of proportion.

But even if you weren't, the language I read all over this bill specifically pertains to the federal government, I didn't see any mention of this bill specifically referring to state or local laws.

[Methais]

This is getting pretty serious guys

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t34.0-12/15135663_10154372386732535_1930559501_n.png?oh=b93 a5f0b539c88a1d0f1b9b65c0745b5&oe=5831DC7A

[adverbious]

Who let Jeril escape this time?

[Warriorbird]

First of all I think you and others are blowing this bill out of proportion.

But even if you weren't, the language I read all over this bill specifically pertains to the federal government, I didn't see any mention of this bill specifically referring to state or local laws.

Supremacy Clause holds... unless specifically excluded.

[Tgo01]

Supremacy Clause holds... unless specifically excluded.

All over the bill it specifically mentions this pertains to the federal government, such as:


(a) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.


(b) Discriminatory action defined.—As used in subsection (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the Federal Government to—


(c) Accreditation; licensure; certification.—The Federal Government shall consider accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of Federal law any person that would be accredited, licensed, or certified, respectively, for such purposes but for a determination against such person wholly or partially on the basis that the person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.


(d) Authority of United States To Enforce This Act.—The Attorney General may bring an action for injunctive or declaratory relief against an independent establishment described in section 104(1) of title 5, United States Code, or an officer or employee of that independent establishment, to enforce compliance with this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to deny, impair, or otherwise affect any right or authority of the Attorney General, the United States, or any agency, officer, or employee of the United States, acting under any law other than this subsection, to institute or intervene in any proceeding.


(b) No preemption, repeal, or narrow construction.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt State law, or repeal Federal law, that is equally or more protective of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to narrow the meaning or application of any State or Federal law protecting free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government from providing, either directly or through a person not seeking protection under this Act, any benefit or service authorized under Federal law.

Sounds to me like this prevents the federal government from getting involved in matters such as this, sort of like DOMA didn't prevent states from recognizing same sex marriages.

[Tgo01]

From the text of the first amendments defense. To me, this is the dangerous part:

"Defines "person" as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status."

It writes Citizens United into law. Which is somewhat different from the supreme court ruling. Corporations are not people.

Also unless I'm reading the wrong bill, this bill doesn't mention any of this.

What I see is:


(3) PERSON.—The term “person” means a person as defined in section 1 of title 1, United States Code, and includes any such person regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof, and regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

Which granted still pertains to corporations, but the important part to read before this part is:


In this Act:

So this only recognizes corporations as people for the purpose of this one particular act, it does not grant corporations full personhood status with the right to vote or everything.

[Latrinsorm]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in educational facilities and public workplaces. This act has been expanded to include other classes in recent years and the LGBT community has made a lot of progress in becoming a protected class and establish in my mind an unbreakable precedent. I have gay family members and a diverse group of friends that I care deeply about.

However, I find myself constantly questioning this point. Over the course of a couple decades, it seems to me that the freedom of religion has changed to the freedom to worship. Let me state that my personal beliefs are inclusive of everyone and are based on compassion and caring. I am not a religious zealot, but those that are deeply religious, rooted firmly in their religious beliefs, and strictly practice their religion in their daily life are being forced to go against their religion or face possible legal repercussions. I don't belief the first amendment was written or should be interpreted this way. The press is allowed to make points for or against protected classes, the freedom of speech allows people to vocally express these same points, and the freedom to peacefully assemble does as well. So why has the freedom of religion been singled out?The Founders knew exactly that these types of debates would come up, and that the only winning move was not to play at all, to allow a law only if it applied regardless of religion. For example, murder is illegal. If your religion tells you you have to murder someone and you do, you face the same legal repercussions as anyone else. Everyone agrees about this. Somehow everyone does not agree when the act in question is discrimination. If you can figure out why, I'd love to know.

[Methais]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/15135742_1259664507402301_7646254438854667692_n.jp g?oh=1fe93110f15f8b5d3c66590a411712a9&oe=58D01D31

[Methais]

The Founders knew exactly that these types of debates would come up, and that the only winning move was not to play at all, to allow a law only if it applied regardless of religion. For example, murder is illegal. If your religion tells you you have to murder someone and you do, you face the same legal repercussions as anyone else. Everyone agrees about this. Somehow everyone does not agree when the act in question is discrimination. If you can figure out why, I'd love to know.

Because not eating bacon needs to be illegal everywhere you porkist.

[Parkbandit]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/15135742_1259664507402301_7646254438854667692_n.jp g?oh=1fe93110f15f8b5d3c66590a411712a9&oe=58D01D31

Looks like Trump is a fucking plagiarist..

[Gelston]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p526x296/15135742_1259664507402301_7646254438854667692_n.jp g?oh=1fe93110f15f8b5d3c66590a411712a9&oe=58D01D31

Hey man, this isn't the stone age barbarism of the 90s. This is the 21st century man. Do you have your diaper pin yet?

[Gelston]

Hey man, this isn't the stone age barbarism of the 90s. This is the 21st century man. Do you have your diaper pin yet?

Flagged for microaggressions. I categorized your gender. I apologize.

[Parkbandit]

Flagged for microaggressions. I categorized your gender. I apologize.

Apology is not enough. TRIGGERED

[Enuch]

Get over it. The gays and the blacks had their 8 years, now it's our turn again.

This gave me a chuckle

[Methais]

This gave me a chuckle

http://i.imgur.com/himZD0M.gif