Dem Lawmakers Move To Restrict Christians’ Right To Oppose Homosexuality
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A new bill being proposed by Democrats would amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from “being used to justify discrimination against people, including gay, lesbian and transgender citizens,” The Washington Post reports, leading to fears that religious organizations could be restricted from opposing homosexuality.
The new law would be called the Do No Harm Act, and its purported aim is to amend the 25-year-old RFRA so that religious injunctions on homosexuality could not be considered under it.
“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly referred to as RFRA, was popular among lawmakers in both parties when it was enacted in 1993. Initially, it was usually referenced in cases involving practitioners of minority religions, such as Sikhs and Muslims seeking the right to wear their religious headgear in their driver’s license photos,” The Post reported last Tuesday.
“But in recent years, it has become a favorite law among conservative Christians, who say that it protects their rights to abstain from practices they disavow.”
The RFRA was part of the legal argument used by Christian-based chain Hobby Lobby when it successfully argued before the Supreme Court that it should not be mandated to provide certain types of contraception to their employees in their health care plans under Obamacare.
The same law is being used by a Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for their wedding.
“While our country was founded on the value of religious liberty, that freedom cannot come at the expense of others’ civil rights,” Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii said in a statement.
The bill is unlikely to pass, given that the GOP controls the House, Senate and 1600 Pennsylvania, but it gives a disturbing glimpse into how the Democrats plan to attack the First Amendment and religion in the courts.
At least speaking as a Christian, the Bible is fairly clear on homosexuality and transgender issues. Whether or not you yourself as a believer choose to follow those strictures is your own choice, but there’s no denying that they are in there and they’re constitutionally-protected.
Do you think this bill should be defeated?
The Do No Harm Act has zero chance of passing at the moment, but it would arguably be a key initiative that the Democrats would look to pursue were they to regain power, which should worry constitutionally-minded Americans endlessly.
The problems with the Do No Harm Act start with the very name: It is meant to do irreparable harm to religious liberty in this country. Only certain types of religious liberty are now allowed — the ones preordained as being OK by the Democrat Party.
Keep in mind that the RFRA already doesn’t abrogate the civil rights of any individual. In the Hobby Lobby decision, the court specifically noted that there were other alternatives available to the employees wishing to seek contraception under Obamacare. Rather, the point would be to force religious organizations to provide certain services that go against their belief systems even if other alternatives existed for those services to be fulfilled.
This isn’t a blank check against religious liberty, but it certainly comes close. Could church organizations be forced to fund sex changes or the Catholic church to fund abortions? Could congregations be forced to perform gay weddings? Under the right set of state laws, yes, that could be seen as a legal possibility, no matter what the legitimate beliefs of the religious organization may be.
The great irony here is that those who are proposing it decided to name it the Do No Harm Act because apparently, those who are harmed by it are non-entities in their book.
The religious, inasmuch as they actually believe in their religion and practice it, have of late been met with unalloyed enmity by the Democrats. The idea seems to be that your beliefs in God are perfectly fine, just so long as they don’t get in the way of someone getting contraception in the most expedient manner possible, even if that means violating the First Amendment.
This is a bill that ought to scare every American, no matter what their belief in God may be.
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
I guess they missed the memo. nothing "they suggest" will ever become law again for a very very long time.
I guess you missed the memo, same sex marriage was passed with a conservative SCOTUS.
and that has to do with this new bill proposed by democrats how? (try to focus on the actual subject this time.)
and what exactly makes you think this new bill will pass into law? (be specific. tks)
a simple fact of life. the left has very little political juice left... all they can do now is bitch and complain. nothing else.
cheers
Perhaps you missed the part about Christian extremists whining because they have to comply with public accommodation laws and can't use superstition as an excuse to violate a generally applicable law. The bigoted bakers in Colorado and California are good examples of Christian extremists who are demanding special rights.
Gosh, I didn't know that November was a very, very long time off.
the left is not taking back the house or senate... not a chance.
but I admire your spirit
cheers
OK, let's "Wait and, see".
Religious freedom cannot obstruct someone's civil rights. No? Ask Kim Davis...she can explain it to you.
Religious freedom cannot obstruct someone's civil rights. No? Ask Kim Davis...she can explain it to you.
She lost her job and was taken to court as she imposed her personal beliefs on others. It was against the law to do that. She could believe what she wanted, so long as she followed the law. She did not do that, however.
Just like sanctuary cities impose their beliefs on others regardless of the law. Not a single proponent of sanctuary cities, Mayors, Governors, has lost their jobs for imposing their beliefs on non-believers. I live in a sanctuary city, and no one is forced to follow the law. Why aren't the treated just like Kim Davis?
Sweeping generalizations, {SP}
Unfortunately she did not. It would be great if the dumb bigot could have been fired but that's usually not possible for elected offices. However it's almost certain that she'll lose her job in November.
.
Correct. Her actions were no different from the racist morons in the confederate states who denied licenses to mixed-race couples after SCOTUS made the Loving v Virginia ruling.
.
I fail to see the analogy, even an absurdly strained one like yours was. Perhaps you need to read US v Arizona or at least learn about the differences between state and federal laws? The states not only have no obligation to enforce federal immigration law but they're absolutely prohibited from doing so. In general it's not the obligation of any state or locality to enforce (or even assist the enforcement) of any federal law.
In contrast Kim Davis was violating multiple aspects of the US constitution (the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses) not merely failing to enforce a law which was outside of her authority to enforce anyway, and she was putting her Christian sharia laws above the US constitution and thus violating her oath of office. Moreover since Kentucky was party to the Obergefell ruling her state's ban on marriage equality had been directly struck down, not just struck down indirectly as happened in the confederate states. What Davis did was profoundly unethical.
She lost her job.....
Unfortunately she did not. It would be great if the dumb bigot could have been fired but that's usually not possible for elected offices. However it's almost certain that she'll lose her job in November.
The powers of her office were stripped, and her deputies assumed authority for her elected office. " She lost her job", meaning she could not perform the duties of an elected official . ( my bad for not being clearer) She ran again as the Democrat that she was, in 2015, and after promising to follow the law, she was reelected and her term does not expire till next year. Her office now issues same sex marriage licenses. Once agreeing to follow the law, she got her job back.
.
I fail to see the analogy,
Morally, she claimed that she could not follow the law. Same reasons were given for sanctuary cities. Your lack of a logical perspective is not my problem.
even an absurdly strained one like yours was.
Insulting, condescending, childish, I would expect nothing less. A factual reality for an ideologue is like sunlight for a vampire. Deadly (LOL)
Perhaps you need to read US v Arizona or at least learn about the differences between state and federal laws?
I defy you to make your point using the case you cite. (LOL)
The law was found to be usurping the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
As the New York times reported.
Freudian slip? bwah ha ha
Spellcheck (LOL) hypocrites
I agree with half of your post the other half not so much, read post 3.1.2 for clarification.
No she did not. In FACT, she is STILL the County Clerk.
Actually, what she did was refuse services based on her personal beliefs. Thank you for admitting that refusing services is equivalent to imposing one's beliefs on others.
Not according to Davis, and the 'Liberty Counsel' [working pro bono].
Which is EXACTLY what is being demanded of others who deny services to LGBTQ people in states where 'sexual orientation and gender identity' have been included as protected classes.
That is a ridiculous false equivalency.
AS all too many conservatives decry, elections have consequences. BTW, town and city counsel's VOTE sanctuary city measures into law. State legislatures do the same. They do so during legislative sessions open to the public. The MAJORITY of the people and their ELECTED representatives pass sanctuary measures.
What law are you referring to specifically?
Kim Davis broke the law. Sanctuary jurisdictions PASS a law to FOLLOW.
Oh and again, you are citing a false equivalency. Sanctuary measures are NOT inherently based on ANY religious belief. So while YOU may have a religious belief that sanctuary jurisdictions shouldn't exist [though that sound antithetical to any religion I know of], NO government entity has expressed a religious basis for passing sanctuary measures. Moral YES, religious NO.
You've yet to cite a cogent double standard. False equivalencies don't count.
That sounds distinctly like a 'sweeping generalization'.
Political party
Democratic (1983–2015)
Republican (2015–present)
Actually, NO. Davis' claim was inherently religious. Anyone who has read the briefs in the case would know that.
You posted the link to the wiki article on her so I'll post her own words quoted in that article to prove my point:
I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.
If you had posted a 'factual reality', you might have a point. As you've yet to do so cogently, not so much...
Since her point was that the case enumerates the differences between state and federal laws, one would presume that her point is self evident.
False. Federal immigration law is in NO WAY effected by sanctuary measures.
Then they would be, like you, citing a false equivalency.
Ditto.
Bail if you must.
Political party
Democratic (1983–2015)
Republican (2015–present)
As I said, she ran as a Democrat. She won as a Democrat.
Kim B. Davis , chief deputy in the county clerk’s office, Tuesday won the Democratic nomination for that office with a 23-vote margin over Elwood Caudill Jr., a deputy clerk in the PVA office, in the May primary.
Charlotte Combess finished a distant third. Vote totals were Davis, 1,817; Caudill, 1,794; and Combess, 322.
Caudill was not available for comment.
Davis, the daughter of Clerk Jean W. Bailey, will face Republican John Clayton Cox in the November general election. Cox was unopposed in the primar
The problem was that she refused to perform the duties of an elected official.
And as I linked, she is now a Republican.
BTW, that all you've got?
That's quite the sense of humor you've got there. Have you done standup?
You might have a point IF those persons in question were hired as ICE officers. But all sanctuary cities are doing is refusing to turn every government employee into an ICE official for zero additional pay. It actually protects those employees from being forced to do work they weren't hired to do. The police are hired to protect the populace, not enforce immigration law.
I'm not laughing at your attempt to evade my other 2 replies to your comments.
No. Have you done 'SERE' training?
They don't base their premise on any LEGAL grounds. It's all emotion and hyperbole.
Wait until they get a load of the fallout of the recent Murphy v. NCAA opinion. That there 'Anti-commandeering Doctrine" is going to blow their mind. It's applications connect DIRECTLY with State marijuana and Sanctuary measures.
For decades the 'conservative' right has pounded their chest and thrown out the '10th Amendment' card ad nauseam. Yet now that SCOTUS opinions are being published that 'flesh out' exactly what the 10th MEANS to our jurisprudence, they are howling about Federal supremacy.
It drips of hypocrisy.
Pretty much none of that is accurate or even true. She's only won election once (to a 4 year term in 2014) and didn't lose her job or the vast majority of her job duties, a federal court merely assigned the responsibility for issuing marriage licenses to one of her employees. She never agreed to comply with the law, she merely agreed not to interfere with other people issuing licenses (and even there she failed to fully comply). To this day she still refuses to personally issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a subsequent change to the license form, and she took no personal financial responsibility whatsoever for the harm she caused to engaged couples or to the state taxpayers (which was really far more than the $222K the state paid to the plaintiff's attorneys), despite the fact that she really was liable under 42.USC.1983.
The worst part is that the GOP-controlled legislature and new GOP governor catered to her whim to remove the county clerk's name from the marriage licenses which her office issues. So the state folded and catered to the whims of a bigot and a theocrat.......what happens if Davis decides that it's against her sharia laws to file the marriage registration with the state, or that mixed-race couples shouldn't be married (as her county clerk grandmother believed), or against her sharia laws to issue dog licenses to atheists, Muslims and Jews? Does the state cater to the bigoted whims of a theocrat again?
.
Most Dixiecrats got the message long ago but at least Davis now understands that the only true home today for bigots and theocrats is the GOP and it's why the GOP presidential candidates all supported her cause, with Cruz and Huckabee personally lobbying on her behalf and holding rallies in her support. And as noted above she didn't "run again" in any sense until this year when she was unopposed in the GOP primary. She'll very likely lose office in November.
Also I want to give you credit for citing the Morehead News. Not many people would know to do that.
.
So if your comparison of sanctuary cities to Davis' violation of the US constitution has any validity at all why has no federal court ever stopped sanctuary cities? The states and the cities aren't preventing the feds from enforcing federal law so your "patchwork" claim is totally bogus, and they aren't exactly a new thing.....they've been around since the early 1970s but really flourished during Reagan's dirty wars. Why has our new Glorious Leader's DOJ been unable to do anything about sanctuary cities and even lost a key case when the courts stopped him from denying federal grants to such cities? In fact so far our Glorious Leader has lost or been enjoined in every single court case his DOJ has filed against sanctuary cities. In contrast Davis lost every single court case and every single claim she made on her issue. So your understanding of the sanctuary city issue is seriously flawed and your comparison to Davis is in error.
Note that my only real complaint with your original comment concerned the comparison to sanctuary cities because it's a right-wing meme which has no basis in reality. Otherwise I often agree with your comments and I didn't mean to come across as hostile.
Yep. :)
Kim Davis hasn't been a Democrat for more than 2 years.
That ought to be put that particular ugly baby to bed
Davis wasn't a real Democrat. She was a Dixiecrat. Tellingly, Spell Check changes Dixiecrats to Dixie Rats...
now that's funny
Kim Davis, such a good Christian....
sweeping generalizations [ph]
True! And hello Tessy...
How? What religious freedoms are being removed? I mean, other than none?
You already have 100% freedom of religion. What this article is implying is that religious cults want MORE freedom so they can exercise their racism and bigotry....because lets face it, Jesus only liked rich, white, straight, republican, males. [eye roll]
That is all I get out of it. They want the right to put themselves above others.
Is this the new 'tactic' of the GOP to defend christian hypocrisy, intolerance and bigotry?
Oh, forgive me. The tactic is an old one, wiped off and presented again.
from the Do No Harm Act:
from:
um.. sure.. this sounds terrible ?? we will no longer allow the religious to abuse or exploit their children and the seeder (and author) is against this ?! we are requiring that the religious legally not discriminate against minorities, people with disabilities etc... yet the seeder (and the author) is against this ?!
Hate LGBTQ people all you want, HA, it doesn't matter to me in the long run. Your God will judge you, not me.
Say all the hateful, bigoted things you want. You're still allowed to do that under the First Amendment. Just don't expect your employer or other people to embrace your hate speech. Expect them to condemn it and expect to suffer consequences.
Don't, however, discriminate against ANYBODY when it comes to ensuring their constitutional rights. Frankly, I don't want the government to tell churches they have to perform gay weddings. That would just defeat the whole purpose of the First Amendment. And besides, churches that refuse to perform any kind of wedding, will find they have problems filling pews in the future.
And for all your whining about your rights taken away...there's another one of your opposite (me) whining about the same thing. I do expect that if things don't change in this country or if you and yours get your way, I will be the one who is persecuted.
Excellent chart!
Thanks. I use it as a reference when bogged down by the blather about 'religious liberty.
To the point and correct.
I agree with you.
This phrase needs to be tattooed on the eyelids of every conservative
And amazingly, unrefuted by anyone here. Perhaps the chart caused some unwelcome epiphanies.
Very unlikely..... Right wingers seem to be able to rationalize rather blatant violations of the Establishment clause while simultaneously whining that their "religious freedums" are being violated when the law prohibits them from harming minorities.
Hope springs eternal.
Oddly, or maybe not, this bill would make the 1993, Clinton era, RFRA inapplicable to certain federal laws.
The Federal law doesn't apply to states. Some states have passed similar laws, but the Federal RFRA doesn't apply to state governments.
Poorly worded. This bill makes the RFRA inapplicable to federal law that protects against the promotion of equal opportunity? Do we have laws that proscribe the promotion of equal opportunity? If so, the RFRA won't apply when someone claims they were promoting equal opportunity based on their closely held religious beliefs.
Here is an example of congress passing an original bill, when it did not really need to, then coming later and attempting additional legislation because the first effort blew up in its face.
Clinton had a veto proof congress, if he had not signed it congress would have passed it anyway.
Clinton signed the bill into law that was promoted by Chuck Schumer and co-sponsored by damn near every other democrat. I'm fairly certain his arm was not twisted on the deal either. Regardless, doesn't change the fact that this is still an example of the legislature jumping on the band wagon of public opinion, and drafting crap that really doesn't need to be law.
As an aside, the outrage that spawned the bill came from a denial of benefits to a group of guys after they failed a drug test.
Like I said, Clinton had a MAJORITY REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. It didn't matter if he signed it or not, it would have passed. That is a FACT.
Signed into law November of 1993, during the 103rd congress, which was a democrat controlled congress in both the house and senate. Now that's fact.
You never posts facts so . .
See the D next to the sponsors names
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected."[1] The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer ( D - NY ) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy ( D - MA ) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate
“But in recent years, it has become a favorite law among conservative Christians, who say that it protects their rights to abstain from practices they disavow.”
Wait. If homosexuality is protected, then Christians have no choice but to engage in homosexual relations?
That has to be my favorite part of this ridiculous article.
Additionally, discriminating against discrimination is not actually discrimination. You Christians gotta check yourselves against the hate you spew.
Just more FREEDOMS being enacted by Democrats …… AGAIN ?
I'd hate to see what they would enact if they didn't like something.
What exactly are you suggesting?
I never "suggest" ..... ANYTHING.
I guess you would have to make real points before suggestions become obvious.
Then what did this reply mean?
"The BLIND will one day see" !
Exactly what it noted.
sar·casm
[ˈsärˌkazəm]
NOUN
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
High school was fun in my day !
So FREEDOM is only worthy of your mockery and contempt. What other cornerstones of our Democratic Republic are on your list?
The problem with your claim of sarcasm is that the Democrats aren't taking anything away from people. They are merely prohibiting people from allowing hypocrites from cherry-picking the Bible to defend their bigotry. These people are not followers of Jesus. They are bigots who pick and choose from the Bible because of the religious freedoms of the First Amendment.
Nobody is saying or even suggesting that you must support LGBT people or LGBT equal rights/marriage. They have the right to buy a billboard on the freeway and proclaim that fags will burn in Hell and the ACLU will protect their free speech rights. What they cannot do it to discriminate in business because of their bigotry.
Do tell.
Sounds to me like "Select Rule" !
kinda like the Democrats "Minority" thingy !
Exactly what I said.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. "
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Your reply does not contain a consistent coherent thought.
I know....sorry YOU didn't understand !
Why would you post a reply when you knew that it was incoherent?
it's his modus operandi
It Is ME put the idea out there for discussion. Tessy' has the right to follow that line of thought.
I know.
Oh your back. How about answering some of the questions members have asked you on this seed.
There was nothing about those replies that were personal.
1.) As the clerk of court, her religious beliefs are not in any way part of how she does her job. Her job is that of a secular country clerk, and as such those who appear in front of her on official business do not have to live by or conform to her religious beliefs. The judge that threw her in the grey bar hotel for a few days to cool her heels made her very aware of that concept. Which one of Kim Davis' 3 marriages are sacred?
2.) Hillary Clinton is a Methodist so why would she try to attack your religious beliefs?
So I guess the answer to my question is NO. There are at least half a dozen questions posed to you on the seed. Why post seeds that you aren't willing to participate in?
You get a cut and paste from the seed text or an incoherent sentence as a response.
At least that would be a response. This seed shows no responses to a myriad of questions.
Too bad that baking and selling a cake isn't a violation of the freedom of speech, otherwise that argument could be used to refuse service to blacks, Asians, Jews, Christians, etc. In fact no non-discrimination law in the country would remain standing.
Their freedom of speech does not in any way outweigh the guarantee of equal service in a public accommodation business. They opened that business voluntarily and were informed of the public accommodation protection requirements when they received their business license so they can not now claim that their freedom of speech makes those protections, with include gender identity and sexual orientation because of the Unruh act, are now subservient to their religious free speech. They have the right not to agree with LGBT marriage and to speak out against it in their private life, but they cannot refuse to serve LGBT customers equally in that business.
You can spin this any way that you want and cite all of the religious legal claims that you may believe but the law is on my side. Where is the Bible does Jesus tell his follwers to discriminate against others or even mention LGBT by Jesus?
That means SCOTUS has been wrong for the past 140 years:
He blatantly ignored a state law, a basic tenant of the Civil Rights Act and the separation of church and state.
If his ruling was a reply to a question on the bar exam he would have flunked.
Christ, HA. Is there no limit to how far you will go to contort reality and push blatant lies in order to achieve your perverted goals of your bogus religion-based domination of a society which overwhelmingly rejects that goal?
LOL!!!!!! Nope!
Im wondering if someone in this thread might be being paid in Rubles, CSA scipt or Bitcoin....................
J/K.
Deleted, skirting {SP}
I support any legislation that takes rights away from Christians simply because it makes HA mad.