First Amendment Defense Act
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2016, 12:16 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I could make arguments for or against this bill. I've said many times that people shouldn't be forced to perform work against their religous beliefs unless they are actual government employees. Like the muslim truck drivers that won their lawsuit against their employer for making them drive beer trucks. Snowflake fast food workers refuse to serve cops. Snowflakes can go find a pro gay marriage bakery to make their cake when they want to marry another snowflake.

You'd be slightly less dishonest if you just said "faggot".
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gawdzilla's post
21-12-2016, 12:17 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 12:16 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I could make arguments for or against this bill. I've said many times that people shouldn't be forced to perform work against their religous beliefs unless they are actual government employees. Like the muslim truck drivers that won their lawsuit against their employer for making them drive beer trucks. Snowflake fast food workers refuse to serve cops. Snowflakes can go find a pro gay marriage bakery to make their cake when they want to marry another snowflake.

You'd be slightly less dishonest if you just said "faggot".

Don't feed the trolls. He's an assflake.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 12:25 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 12:31 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 12:16 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 11:01 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I could make arguments for or against this bill. I've said many times that people shouldn't be forced to perform work against their religous beliefs unless they are actual government employees. Like the muslim truck drivers that won their lawsuit against their employer for making them drive beer trucks. Snowflake fast food workers refuse to serve cops. Snowflakes can go find a pro gay marriage bakery to make their cake when they want to marry another snowflake.

You'd be slightly less dishonest if you just said "faggot".

Nah. I don't use words like that. Ever. I've got nothing against gays personally.

Snowflake is just a term for all varieties of pansy liberals; SJW's, feminists, overly sensitive types, safe space needing wimps. A lot of them happen to be gay or cucks. Beta types.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 12:26 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 12:17 PM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 12:16 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  You'd be slightly less dishonest if you just said "faggot".

Don't feed the trolls. He's an assflake.

Hadn't noticed. Drinking Beverage
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 12:38 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 12:55 PM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
As Joe Friday used to say in Dragnet, "Just the facts, ma'am."

H. R. 2802


To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


June 17, 2015

Mr. Labrador (for himself, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Jones, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Allen, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Harris, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Babin, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Rouzer, Mrs. Black, Mr. Brat, Mr. Mooney of West Virginia, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Love, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Stewart) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL


To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “First Amendment Defense Act”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.

(2) As the President stated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, “Americans hold a wide range of views” on the issue of same-sex marriage, and “maintaining our Nation’s commitment to religious freedom” is “vital”.

(3) Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that “[i]t’s certainly going to be an issue”.

(4) Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order. Legislatively enacted measures advance this interest by remedying, deterring, and preventing Government interference with religious exercise in a way that complements the protections mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(5) Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.

SEC. 3. Protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions.

(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—

(1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);

(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;

(3) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person;

(4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or

(5) otherwise discriminate against such person.

© 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.

SEC. 4. Judicial relief.

(a) Cause of action.—A person may assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and obtain compensatory damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or any other appropriate relief against the Federal Government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

(b) Administrative remedies not required.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be commenced, and relief may be granted, in a United States district court without regard to whether the person commencing the action has sought or exhausted available administrative remedies.

© Attorneys’ fees.—Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting “the First Amendment Defense Act,” after “the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,”.

(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.

SEC. 5. Rules of construction.

(a) Broad construction.—This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.

(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.

© Severability.—If any provision of this Act or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

SEC. 6. Definitions.

In this Act:

(1) FEDERAL BENEFIT PROGRAM.—The term “Federal benefit program” has the meaning given that term in section 552a of title 5, United States Code.

(2) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.—The term “Federal Government” includes each authority of any branch of the Government of the United States.

(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.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 12:39 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 11:53 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 11:47 AM)tomilay Wrote:  A lot of laws go against many people's beliefs religious or otherwise. What is so special about religious beliefs?

It's in the constitution. "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." People are protected from the government interfering over which religious beliefs they can follow.

Yeah...to some extent. I think there are limits imposed by superior rights. If your religion says you should kill an infidel, you are going to run into legal hurdles. You cannot make your space safe from infidels by physically eliminating them. Certain rights are always constrained by their effect on other rights..

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 12:47 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 12:39 PM)tomilay Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 11:53 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  It's in the constitution. "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." People are protected from the government interfering over which religious beliefs they can follow.

Yeah...to some extent. I think there are limits imposed by superior rights. If your religion says you should kill an infidel, you are going to run into legal hurdles. You cannot make your space safe from infidels by physically eliminating them. Certain rights are always constrained by their effect on other rights..

I agree. It will be up to the supreme court to decide which right is superior. The right to refuse service on religious grounds (bakers, florists, pharmacists) or the right to not be discriminated against for being gay under any circumstance.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 02:22 PM by Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver.)
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
Now let's review this. This post will be updated as I gradually make passes over it and review it against established law.

H. R. 2802


To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


June 17, 2015

Mr. Labrador (for himself, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Jones, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Pittenger, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Allen, Mr. Huelskamp, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Harris, Mrs. Wagner, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Babin, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Rouzer, Mrs. Black, Mr. Brat, Mr. Mooney of West Virginia, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mrs. Love, Mr. Gowdy, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Stewart) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


A BILL


To prevent discriminatory treatment of any person on the basis of views held with respect to marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “First Amendment Defense Act”.

- Weasel words. See the Baloney Detection Kit.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds the following:

(1) Leading legal scholars concur that conflicts between same-sex marriage and religious liberty are real and should be legislatively addressed.

- Without sources or citations, this is purely opinion based, largely aligning on partisan or religious lines and should not be included.

(2) As the President stated in response to the decision of the Supreme Court on the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013, “Americans hold a wide range of views” on the issue of same-sex marriage, and “maintaining our Nation’s commitment to religious freedom” is “vital”.

- This is nothing more than a footnote to the real content of that Presidential address in response to SCOTUS' decision on Obergerfell v Hodges. The President stated that "We're pleased that.....the Court Struck down a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act." The full address can be viewed here.

(3)Nevertheless, in 2015, when asked whether a religious school could lose its tax-exempt status for opposing same-sex marriage, the Solicitor General of the United States represented to the United States Supreme Court that “[i]t’s certainly going to be an issue”.

- Pending review. More on tax exempt statues later.

(4) Protecting religious freedom from Government intrusion is a Government interest of the highest order. Legislatively enacted measures advance this interest by remedying, deterring, and preventing Government interference with religious exercise in a way that complements the protections mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(5) Laws that protect the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions about marriage will encourage private citizens and institutions to demonstrate tolerance for those beliefs and convictions and therefore contribute to a more respectful, diverse, and peaceful society.

- Indeed, though I seriously doubt the implementation of that policy is anything remotely similar to what the authors of this bill intended.

SEC. 3. Protection of the free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions.

(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.


- No more appetizers here, kids. This is the meat and potatoes of the bill and also where we need a little primer on what both the Constitution and the Supreme Court says on these subjects.

First there is the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. More specifically the First Amendment of the Constitution is what provides us with the provisions, scope and limits for government interference in the religious liberties:

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is in effect upon all government of the United States of America, be it local, state, and federal under the umbrella of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.

Amendment XIV

Section 1 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



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

(1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);

(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;

(3) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person;

(4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or

(5) otherwise discriminate against such person.

© 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.

SEC. 4. Judicial relief.

(a) Cause of action.—A person may assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and obtain compensatory damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, or any other appropriate relief against the Federal Government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

(b) Administrative remedies not required.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be commenced, and relief may be granted, in a United States district court without regard to whether the person commencing the action has sought or exhausted available administrative remedies.

© Attorneys’ fees.—Section 722(b) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988(b)) is amended by inserting “the First Amendment Defense Act,” after “the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,”.

(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.

SEC. 5. Rules of construction.

(a) Broad construction.—This Act shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of free exercise of religious beliefs and moral convictions, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act and the Constitution.

(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.

© Severability.—If any provision of this Act or any application of such provision to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act and the application of the provision to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected.

SEC. 6. Definitions.

In this Act:

(1) FEDERAL BENEFIT PROGRAM.—The term “Federal benefit program” has the meaning given that term in section 552a of title 5, United States Code.

(2) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.—The term “Federal Government” includes each authority of any branch of the Government of the United States.

(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.


GOOD RESOURCES FOR PEOPLE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, THE LAW AND THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS CONCERNING THEM.

The United States Constitution (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview)

The Bill of Rights Institute (http://billofrightsinstitute.org/)

The George Washington Institution for Religious Freedom (http://www.gwirf.org/)

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
21-12-2016, 02:11 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
Laws are rarely interpreted the way they were intended and I can't think of many laws that didn't have unforeseen consequences.

Conservatives will ensure gay marriage will become a thing of the past and the likes of Lord Dark Helmut agrees with this.

/thread


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 02:19 PM
RE: First Amendment Defense Act
(21-12-2016 12:25 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Snowflake is just a term for all varieties of pansy liberals; SJW's, feminists, overly sensitive types, safe space needing wimps. A lot of them happen to be gay or cucks. Beta types.

Wouldn't that also include religious fundamentalist who want to turn their business into safe space for the practice of their religion by refusing services to people they consider "immorals"? Bigots fit all the description of a snowflake (according to the urban dictionnary); afterall they need to be protected from the impious, the queers and their critique all the time.

Tongue

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: