Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”
The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act."
I guess the abortion part and premarital sex only refers to the healthcare aspect because how would an employer or educational institution know if someone had an abortion or is having sex before marriage (unless the woman got pregnant)? Maybe if she had an abortion while she was still working but many companies don't like hiring pregnant women anyway.
"The four-page draft order, a copy of which is currently circulating among federal staff and advocacy organizations, construes religious organizations so broadly that it covers “any organization, including closely held for-profit corporations,” and protects “religious freedom” in every walk of life: “when providing social services, education, or healthcare; earning a living, seeking a job, or employing others; receiving government grants or contracts; or otherwise participating in the marketplace, the public square, or interfacing with Federal, State or local governments.”
The draft order seeks to create wholesale exemptions for people and organizations who claim religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage, premarital sex, abortion, and trans identity, and it seeks to curtail women’s access to contraception and abortion through the Affordable Care Act."
I am waiting to read the actual words to pass judgement. Just so you know what makes non-extremists willing to consider this a reasonable response to recent events:
A private citizen shouldn't to fined out of business because they don't want to make a cake for something they feel is in conflict with their religious beliefs. Or don't want to take pictures. Or sing. If they lose their business because word gets out that they are a bigot so no one wants to use their services, that's on them, it is the fining them out of business part that is wrong.
Other than in an immediate life-or-death situation, no one should be forced to perform an abortion if they feel it is murder. No one.
No one should be forced to share a bathroom or locker room with someone they feel is a gender different than their own. No one includes transgendered AND non-transgendered individuals. This is especially true of minors. It is infuriating that gender neutral, single user facilities are not seen as a reasonable compromise. And, yes, it will need to be the transgendered individual that uses the gender neutral facility, just based on numbers.
Government officials should not be able to claim religious exemptions to avoid doing part of their job, if they object they need to find employment outside of government, but private citizens and private businesses should be able to do so without government sanctions.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I am waiting to read the actual words to pass judgement. Just so you know what makes non-extremists willing to consider this a reasonable response to recent events:
A private citizen shouldn't to fined out of business because they don't want to make a cake for something they feel is in conflict with their religious beliefs. Or don't want to take pictures. Or sing. If they lose their business because word gets out that they are a bigot so no one wants to use their services, that's on them, it is the fining them out of business part that is wrong.
Other than in an immediate life-or-death situation, no one should be forced to perform an abortion if they feel it is murder. No one.
No one should be forced to share a bathroom or locker room with someone they feel is a gender different than their own. No one includes transgendered AND non-transgendered individuals. This is especially true of minors. It is infuriating that gender neutral, single user facilities are not seen as a reasonable compromise. And, yes, it will need to be the transgendered individual that uses the gender neutral facility, just based on numbers.
Government officials should not be able to claim religious exemptions to avoid doing part of their job, if they object they need to find employment outside of government, but private citizens and private businesses should be able to do so without government sanctions.
From my understanding of this it goes way beyond someone being able to not bake a cake.. I've read several interpretations of this and most agree that if enacted as written it would;
1) allow a federal employee to refuse to provide services to an LGBT person
2) allow a federally funded child welfare organization to refuse services to an LGBT child.
That's just wrong. I can't imagine that anyone's faith would be threatened by having to process a social security application for a gay person.
To be honest I think this is the work of Bannon and Stephen Miller, I think they want to divide the Country so badly that people will have massive riots in the streets, then they can send in the National Guard and all their newly minted 15,000 ICE agents. Round us all up, get rid of the 1st amendment, criminalize peaceful protest, install martial law and cease all elections which of course will mean the end of democracy and ensure that our nation will be run in perpetuity by the Mercer's and the Koch's.
And no, I'm not crazy and I don't think I'm an alarmist. What is happening to us every day is so beyond the pale that to normalize it or expect a good result is extraordinarily naive and dangerous.
yes you are being alarmist. these very things have been said about obama, both bushes, clinton reagan nixon, johnson, JFK, and many other presidents.
I am waiting to read the actual words to pass judgement. Just so you know what makes non-extremists willing to consider this a reasonable response to recent events:
A private citizen shouldn't to fined out of business because they don't want to make a cake for something they feel is in conflict with their religious beliefs. Or don't want to take pictures. Or sing. If they lose their business because word gets out that they are a bigot so no one wants to use their services, that's on them, it is the fining them out of business part that is wrong.
Actually its not wrong at all, that's the law, and you have a choice to follow it or not. And its a state law, not a federal one. Its just like saying you wouldn't serve blacks for religious reasons. Is that OK? And that has some history as well: https://thinkprogress.org/when-relig...a-67bc973c4042
Quote:
Other than in an immediate life-or-death situation, no one should be forced to perform an abortion if they feel it is murder. No one.
And no one is that I know of. So I am not sure where this comes form.
Quote:
No one should be forced to share a bathroom or locker room with someone they feel is a gender different than their own. No one includes transgendered AND non-transgendered individuals. This is especially true of minors. It is infuriating that gender neutral, single user facilities are not seen as a reasonable compromise. And, yes, it will need to be the transgendered individual that uses the gender neutral facility, just based on numbers.
Your kids are in more danger from priests. You've all been sharing them with them for decades now, and in far higher numbers then you suspect. Separate but equal in your discrimination? Ring a bell?
Quote:
Government officials should not be able to claim religious exemptions to avoid doing part of their job, if they object they need to find employment outside of government, but private citizens and private businesses should be able to do so without government sanctions.
Again, see my reference about discriminating against blacks. This is no different at all.
And this is sort of what I mean, this is VASTLY polarizing, and will be stopped in court. Pass OR Fail its going to further tear us apart. And many will find the resulting chaos not at all what they expected.
News flash by the way, a LOT of trans folks hit the coasts because they literally are afraid of being killed in flyover country. Its truly insane folks. These are your fellow Americans.
Edit to add....also anyone notice what ELSE is occurring on Thursday? Comey is testifying.
yes you are being alarmist. these very things have been said about obama, both bushes, clinton reagan nixon, johnson, JFK, and many other presidents.
I don't recall any administration ever implementing such a horribly divisive policy and I've lived through a whole lot of administrations. This is crazy stuff...this would allow a DMV employee to send you packing if you want to renew your car registration and they think you're gay. If your religion prohibits you from talking to, or doing business transactions based upon your assumptions about whether or not a person is heterosexual you should go work in a monastery somewhere, not for the IRS, or Social Security or in a school
[/list]Actually its not wrong at all, that's the law, and you have a choice to follow it or not. And its a state law, not a federal one. Its just like saying you wouldn't serve blacks for religious reasons. Is that OK? And that has some history as well: https://thinkprogress.org/when-relig...a-67bc973c4042
And no one is that I know of. So I am not sure where this comes form.
Your kids are in more danger from priests. You've all been sharing them with them for decades now, and in far higher numbers then you suspect. Separate but equal in your discrimination? Ring a bell?
Again, see my reference about discriminating against blacks. This is no different at all.
And this is sort of what I mean, this is VASTLY polarizing, and will be stopped in court. Pass OR Fail its going to further tear us apart. And many will find the resulting chaos not at all what they expected.
News flash by the way, a LOT of trans folks hit the coasts because they literally are afraid of being killed in flyover country. Its truly insane folks. These are your fellow Americans.
I take it, then, that you are advocating making all multiuser restrooms and locker rooms unisex? Separate but equal is inherently part of the concept of male and female restrooms so the only way to avoid it is to eliminate all gender references.
Of course transsexuals have used the restrooms of the gender they have indentifed with and dressed like since there have been public restrooms. They were discrete about it, so no one knew, they can still do that. No one is going around looking under skirts, as long as a person keeps their privates private no one is going to say a thing. It is no big deal if it isn't made out to be a big deal.
Locker rooms are a whole different story. First and foremost, children should not be exposed to an adult penis. Don't say it won't happen because it already has. But that aside, I really don't understand why I am supposed to be perfectly fine with seeing some strange person's penis flopping around if the person strolls around butt naked in front of me while I am changing clothes but I can have them tossed in jail and put on a lifelong sexual predator list if they briefly show me that same penis on the street outside the gym while I am fully dressed. It is the same penis, I am the same middle age prude, and I don't want to see it in either situation. Frankly, it would bother me more in the locker room, at least on the street I am not exposing anything. Are you proposing we get rid of all public nudity laws, along with all indecent exposure laws? That is the only way there won't be a disconnect.
I know, you don't get it, and won't get it, but most people don't care about your private business. It is when you insist they know your personal business, try to force them to participate in your choices, or demand they unconditionally accept or approve of your activities or choices that they start objecting. What you don't seem to recognize is that Obama's bathroom edict, along with other radical social changes we have experienced in less than a decade, have already polarized people. This is a response to that polarization, not the beginning of it.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I don't recall any administration ever implementing such a horribly divisive policy and I've lived through a whole lot of administrations. This is crazy stuff...this would allow a DMV employee to send you packing if you want to renew your car registration and they think you're gay. If your religion prohibits you from talking to, or doing business transactions based upon your assumptions about whether or not a person is heterosexual you should go work in a monastery somewhere, not for the IRS, or Social Security or in a school
Under no circumstances should government employees be able to have religious objections to preforming the duties of the government position they have chosen to take. The government and government services must absolutely be equally available to all. If they have religious objections that prevent them from honoring that obligation they need to resign. Period. They can then seek out a private employer that is willing, but not mandated, to accomadate their religious objections, or start their own business where they alone will face whatever the fiscal fallout is from that choice and therefore they can make that call.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I take it, then, that you are advocating making all multiuser restrooms and locker rooms unisex? Separate but equal is inherently part of the concept of male and female restrooms so the only way to avoid it is to eliminate all gender references.
Actually im ok with making all the bathroom stalls separate as a rational idea-ie all bathrooms are smaller, and have a door. Im not exactly hung up on this though like most. Probably because im a godless atheist, and unlike the gays only 15% think its ok to discriminate against us.
Quote:
Of course transsexuals have used the restrooms of the gender they have indentifed with and dressed like since there have been public restrooms. They were discrete about it, so no one knew, they can still do that. No one is going around looking under skirts, as long as a person keeps their privates private no one is going to say a thing. It is no big deal if it isn't made out to be a big deal.
Then you agree, no need for a law that will simply cause more hatred, and cause VERY masculine looking men go into womens bathrooms as thats how they were born?
Quote:
Locker rooms are a whole different story. First and foremost, children should not be exposed to an adult penis. Don't say it won't happen because it already has. But that aside, I really don't understand why I am supposed to be perfectly fine with seeing some strange person's penis flopping around if the person strolls around butt naked in front of me while I am changing clothes but I can have them tossed in jail and put on a lifelong sexual predator list if they briefly show me that same penis on the street outside the gym while I am fully dressed. It is the same penis, I am the same middle age prude, and I don't want to see it in either situation. Frankly, it would bother me more in the locker room, at least on the street I am not exposing anything. Are you proposing we get rid of all public nudity laws, along with all indecent exposure laws? That is the only way there won't be a disconnect.
LOL. Again, im not hung up on all this stuff. OMG someone saw something! Yeah, its 2017, your 8 yr old has probably seen it all. But I also recognize thats me, some people think that their kids should grow up all sheltered, and unaware. I dont state I have ALL the answers, but I do know legalized discrimination brings out the most hateful and vile things in us as human beings.
Quote:
I know, you don't get it, and won't get it, but most people don't care about your private business. It is when you insist they know your personal business, try to force them to participate in your choices, or demand they unconditionally accept or approve of your activities or choices that they start objecting. What you don't seem to recognize is that Obama's bathroom edict, along with other radical social changes we have experienced in less than a decade, have already polarized people. This is part of the lib back.
You DO get it I think. Let me point out some things you just said, and ask you to think of them if you were the other side:
Quote:
most people don't care about your private business.
Except now you are wanting to make it so people DO make it their business.
Quote:
force them to participate in your choices
Except NOW you will FORCE them to use a bathroom with a HIGH risk of injury. The first time the really buff guy that used to be a girl walks in the restroom you folks will completely utterly flip out.
and now? You rarely know. And they dont risk injury or death nearly as much.
Quote:
demand they unconditionally accept or approve of your activities or choices
You mean like this would if passed into law? We have to accept YOUR choices to discriminate? And these people do not think they have a choice at all. Because even today, that choice often sucks like you would not believe.
Obamas "bathroom edict" was caused by other people forcing the issue. A issue that was fine before. But now its out there, and we have to choose. Are we the nation that embraces discrimination, or arent we?
And lets say this DOES pass. Do you have ANY idea whats going to occur? The satanists are going to have a complete and utter field day.
Heck, even I will. I will charge Christians a extra 20% when I do contract work with them, and give atheists a 10% discount. Because my claimed religion will say that I need too. People will turn this into a total disaster of epic proportions. And the hatred? Oh yeah. Mormons have a lot of odd beliefs too. sheesh. This is epic levels of unwise.
Here is a fact for you. 80% of people think its wrong to discriminate this way. The push back is going to be large, and damaging to us all.
I am waiting to read the actual words to pass judgement. Just so you know what makes non-extremists willing to consider this a reasonable response to recent events:
A private citizen shouldn't to fined out of business because they don't want to make a cake for something they feel is in conflict with their religious beliefs. Or don't want to take pictures. Or sing. If they lose their business because word gets out that they are a bigot so no one wants to use their services, that's on them, it is the fining them out of business part that is wrong.
Other than in an immediate life-or-death situation, no one should be forced to perform an abortion if they feel it is murder. No one.
No one should be forced to share a bathroom or locker room with someone they feel is a gender different than their own. No one includes transgendered AND non-transgendered individuals. This is especially true of minors. It is infuriating that gender neutral, single user facilities are not seen as a reasonable compromise. And, yes, it will need to be the transgendered individual that uses the gender neutral facility, just based on numbers.
Government officials should not be able to claim religious exemptions to avoid doing part of their job, if they object they need to find employment outside of government, but private citizens and private businesses should be able to do so without government sanctions.
You summed up my thoughts 100%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
