visionary Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-usa-gay-idUSKBN0FN2E820140719?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter Obama to sign order Monday barring federal discrimination against gays President Barack Obama will sign an executive order on Monday barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, the White House said on Friday. The order does not include new exemptions for religious organizations, a fact that was cheered by gay rights activists. Some religious leaders had pressed Obama for added flexibility in executing the rules, but senior administration officials said that had not been granted. Instead, protections already allowed for religious entities from previous non-discrimination rules were left in place but not expanded. Religious organization would be barred from making hiring decisions based on sexual orientation or gender identity, but exceptions would be allowed for ministers, and groups would be allowed to favor individuals of a particular religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't title IX and the civil rights act already prohibit discrimination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't title IX and the civil rights act already prohibit discrimination? On the basis of sexual orientation? Not sure. I suspect they may not. For gender ID, maybe Title IX offers certain protections. But I think it goes beyond the word of Title IX in one sense: it's possible to discriminate not simply on the basis of gender, but rather on the basis of the target individual's gender being different today from what one would presume at birth based solely on anatomy. A few minutes spent searching would help me here, but I am currently awash in moving boxes and don't have the bandwidth. Great question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 What does Title IX have to do with Federal Contracting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 What does Title IX have to do with Federal Contracting? Under certain circumstances it might pertain to the "any education program" part of IX. Not sure what qualifies there, but perhaps there could be overlap depending on a contractor's specific tasks. Beyond that... nothing? I frankly didn't read the article very closely due to drowning in packing tape, and consequently shouldn't be posting about any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 What does Title IX have to do with Federal Contracting?Ha! You're right. You can tell I work in education.How much protection does the 14th amendment provide? It seems to me it provides a lot, especially the equal protection clause. I'm thinking this order might be redundant, but I don't have a problem with it. There are a lot of homophobes and haters out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I'm thinking this order might be redundant, but I don't have a problem with it. There are a lot of homophobes and haters out there. it will simply result in more lawsuits....back to SCOTUS we go doesn't much matter to me since I think getting in bed with the govt is a bad idea to start with.but it will result in money and time wasted(a Obama specialty )before it is overturned again Obama will sign the regulation despite a protest campaign by centrist and left-of-center religious groups, according to the New York Times. The protesting clerics included Rev. Larry Snyder, the chief executive of Catholic Charities, Rick Warren, the pastor of Saddleback Church — who Obama invited to speak at his 2009 inauguration, and Stephan Bauman, president of World Relief, an evangelical charity. That campaign was countered by a progressive coalition that denounced any exemption for religious groups. Once Obama signs the regulation July 21, the religious groups likely will sue in courts for a reversal. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/18/obama-force-religious-groups-to-pick-faith-or-funding/#ixzz37tRQW5IP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It's been said that religious groups should stay out of politics or pay taxes. I think there might be something to that. I'm not too clear on how this order relates to religious groups at all to be honest, is the government contracting with churches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 So wait, the Supreme Court is going to rule that it's ok to discriminate against gays? Is that what twa is arguing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It's been said that religious groups should stay out of politics or pay taxes. I think there might be something to that. I'm not too clear on how this order relates to religious groups at all to be honest, is the government contracting with churches? govt aid to the poor and needy and adoption are done thru some church/religious groups,as well as disaster relief, housing illegal kids ect. kinda surprised that isn't common knowledge. So wait, the Supreme Court is going to rule that it's ok to discriminate against gays? Is that what twa is arguing? it is ok to discriminate against free practice of religion and association is what you are saying? gays can legally be discriminated against.....especially if ya believe in equality add http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/faith-leaders-exempt-religious-groups-from-order-barring-lgbt-bias-in-hiring/2014/07/02/d82e68da-01f1-11e4-b8ff-89afd3fad6bd_story.html The 14 signers of the letter include leaders of some of the country’s largest faith-based charities, notably Catholic Charities USA and World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals. The signers said they supported the executive order — “we have great appreciation for your commitment to human dignity and justice, and we share those values with you” — but said an exemption is essential. “Americans have always disagreed on important issues, but our ability to live with our diversity is part of what makes this country great, and it continues to be essential even in this 21st-century,” the letter said. “Without a robust religious exemption . . . this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It's been said that religious groups should stay out of politics or pay taxes. I think there might be something to that. I'm not too clear on how this order relates to religious groups at all to be honest, is the government contracting with churches? Oh, that old argument. So if your tax-exempt, you shouldn't have free-speech or opinion. Silence those who disagree with you. Contracting with churches is one of the things I disagreed with vehemently with Bush on. "Faith-based initiatives" are dangerous to the churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It's been said that religious groups should stay out of politics or pay taxes. I think there might be something to that. I'm not too clear on how this order relates to religious groups at all to be honest, is the government contracting with churches? It's been said >> ? << ad nausea per the First Amendment discussions. That could go to the Supreme Court easily. Forcing churches to hire persons they find in direct opposition to what they believe? I don't know why any Gays would want to work somewhere hostile to their own personal choice, which I find as none of my business. BTW, there are plenty of churches that accept the practice. But to force a certain church to federal hiring mandates, wow, what a can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 By the way, I work for a federal contractor and its been common knowledge for a while that homosexuals are a protected class from discrimination. Maybe this is more about transgender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Churches could simply not bid for federal contracts right? Unless churches are profiting from the federal contract, what is the harm from abstaining from federal contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I think I'll use my right to never hire a single religious person. they're simply too judgmental and difficult to deal with. They are flamboyant, constantly telling anyone who will listen about their fantasies, always with the dopey knick knacks all over their workspaces, a continual reminder of how much they love a guy in a white dress.. they can't keep their noses out of people's private lives and generally expect everyone to bend over backwards to meet whatever stupid affront to their ridiculous belief they come up with every other day. They expect special treatment at every turn, and are nothing but constant drama. Believers need not apply. Ever. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 By the way, I work for a federal contractor and its been common knowledge for a while that homosexuals are a protected class from discrimination. Maybe this is more about transgender? I've always understood that gays were not in a legally class. Right now, in the strictest sense you can't discriminate based on race and gender, Society frowns if you discriminate based solely on sexuality and sometimes, we fold how we treat it into our fairness thinking, but on paper they are not protected. Heck, remember just a few years ago in most of not every state committing a homosexual act was a felony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Why would any Christian want to work for Apple given their support for gay rights. Heck why should the CEO of Apple hire anyone who doesn't agree with his stance of LGBT rights. Oh because religious group are a protected class but we can't extend the same protection to other groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 it is ok to discriminate against free practice of religion and association is what you are saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 By the way, I work for a federal contractor and its been common knowledge for a while that homosexuals are a protected class from discrimination. Maybe this is more about transgender? Least as I understand it, gays are a protected class in a lot of states, and a lot of municipalities. but there is no federal law saying so. And Obama is simply trying to use Presidential authority to create a quasi- federal law, and apply it to as many people as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 By the way, I work for a federal contractor and its been common knowledge for a while that homosexuals are a protected class from discrimination. Maybe this is more about transgender?I was wondering the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 old, but cute..... is this EO needlessly imposing on religion or not? simple question the stick has changed hands and now the bigots are getting whacked.....when rights meet is a wondrous thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It's been said >> ? <<More than once:http://money.msn.com/now/post--maybe-churches-shouldnt-be-tax-exempt http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-religious-institutions-pay-taxes http://www.examiner.com/article/time-to-strip-tax-exempt-status-from-all-churches http://www.secularleft.us/archives/2013/08/the-price-for-getting-political-should-cost-churches-82-5-billion.html#.U8p3JNm9LCQ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/ http://pleasecutthecrap.com/if-religions-want-to-be-involved-in-politics-fine-make-them-pay-taxes/ http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/08/21/new-poll-shows-public-thinks-churches-should-stay-out-of-politics Polling shows the majority of Americans agree. Oh, that old argument. So if your tax-exempt, you shouldn't have free-speech or opinion. Silence those who disagree with you.I think the idea is either you have separation of church and state or you don't. It's not right to only have the benefits of that separation but to be unwilling to accept the costs. Among the most offensive things are political endorsements from the pulpit and church funded political campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 More than once: http://money.msn.com/now/post--maybe-churches-shouldnt-be-tax-exempt http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-religious-institutions-pay-taxes http://www.examiner.com/article/time-to-strip-tax-exempt-status-from-all-churches http://www.secularleft.us/archives/2013/08/the-price-for-getting-political-should-cost-churches-82-5-billion.html#.U8p3JNm9LCQ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/ http://pleasecutthecrap.com/if-religions-want-to-be-involved-in-politics-fine-make-them-pay-taxes/ http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/08/21/new-poll-shows-public-thinks-churches-should-stay-out-of-politics Polling shows the majority of Americans agree. I think the idea is either you have separation of church and state or you don't. It's not right to only have the benefits of that separation but to be unwilling to accept the costs. Among the most offensive things are political endorsements from the pulpit and church funded political campaigns. Umm, I believe endorsing a particular political candidate from the pulpit already can result in loss of tax exemption for a church. But what you are saying is that the pulpit should take a stance on societal issues and be culturally relevant? Or only when it comes to things you agree with? Btw, I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, but that doesn't include being silent on issues that both parties have an opinion on. Also, most folks only view separation one way, not bi-directional, which it is. There is more to church than prayers and singing and preaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 I think the idea is either you have separation of church and state or you don't. It's not right to only have the benefits of that separation but to be unwilling to accept the costs. Among the most offensive things are political endorsements from the pulpit and church funded political campaigns. I agree (and think he does as well) Problem here is govt setting conditions(govt intrusion) that excludes beliefs and lifestyles .....wait isn't that what gays were complaining about? the left and centrist religious groups are the ones squawking add maybe the headline should read ...Obama to sign order discriminating against people of faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Problem here is govt setting conditions(govt intrusion) that excludes beliefs and lifestyles .....wait isn't that what gays were complaining about? Discrimination is a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.